Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent activities of the Working Group on Basic Income; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18655/02]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Working Group on Basic Income.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the report of the Working Group on Basic Income. [20269/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the recent activities of the Working Group on Basic Income; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21304/02]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress of the Working Group on Basic Income. [21347/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the findings of the Working Group on Basic Income. [21359/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
The Working Group on Basic Income completed its work in March of last year. The final report was a culmination of extensive research into the broad implications of the introduction of a basic income approach. The next step involved preparing a Green Paper on Basic Income. The Green Paper has been published recently by my Department and draws on the report of the working group.
As will be seen from the Green Paper, the introduction of the basic income concept would involve very considerable changes to our tax and social welfare systems. The Green Paper demonstrates that there is a considerable element of uncertainty in predicting the likely dynamic effects of the introduction of a basic income system. The analysis undertaken for the working group has shown some of the complexity of the forces at work.
Many aspects of the possible dynamic and long run effects of a basic income system are only capable of being assessed on the basis of indicative material and cannot be presented with certainty. Some of the design features are, however, already known to the Irish policy system through the child benefit programme, which has some of the basic income features for a specific grouping in the population. This, of itself, does not provide sufficient evidence to reach conclusions about a more comprehensive approach.
The purpose of the Green Paper is to bring the issues to the attention of the wider community and to encourage debate. This debate should include issues of design and implementation of tax and welfare policy to increase the prospects of achieving the positive benefits of basic income while seeking to minimise those effects which might be regarded as less desirable.
The Justice Commission of the Conference of Religious of Ireland has welcomed the publication of this Green Paper. It has stated that the percentage of households and persons below the income poverty line measured by the ESRI is higher than it was in 1987. Given that the richest 10% of the population are 11 times better off than the poorest 10% of the population, according to the United Nations Development Programme, and given that the gap between rich and poor has widened to €243 per week in the first five years of this Government's Administration, is this not only a manifestation but proof positive of the complete and utter failure of the Government to deal with poverty and the consequences of poverty?
That is not the position. The purpose of the Green Paper is to look at ways of improving matters. We know from Combat Poverty and the ESRI that the greatest gains are at the bottom of the income scale, and that is as it should be. Policies, including budgetary policies, for the past five years have contributed not only to reducing consistent poverty by about 4% to 5% but have reduced child poverty by half, unemployment by more than half, and long-term employment from 5.6% to 1.2%.
There has also been a strategic approach to resourcing and tackling poverty and social exclusion. Data on consistent poverty from recent surveys of the ESRI and Combat Poverty that were used for the recent NAPS review show a decline in consistent poverty from 10% to 6%. We are committed to monitoring trends in relative incomes as part of the revised national anti-poverty strategy, which was part of the programme. It is a good indication of the risk of poverty and relative income measures are also used for cross-national purposes which are used in all these programmes. This Green Paper seeks to discover whether there is another way of doing it and if the position can be improved. I have been committed for some years to an attempt to bring all sides, including policy makers, together to see if we could take the original CORI proposal and turn it into a meaningful document. That has been done in the Green Paper and people must now give their views as to whether this is the way forward or whether there are alternative ways. There are many disadvantages in this but advantages also.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Given that the Combat Poverty Agency and the Children's Rights Alliance state clearly that the fairest way of supporting families with children is through child benefit, and that the Government's anti-poverty strategy is to eliminate child poverty by 2007, will the Taoiseach confirm that the Government is on target to achieve this ambition? Will child benefit be increased by €31.80 per month, and €38.10 at the higher rate, which would be in line with the Government's three year strategy initiated in the 2001 budget?
Those matters will be dealt with in the budget. In recent years, the Government took the advice that the best way to deal with child poverty is to put money into child benefit. That is extremely expensive and perhaps has some disadvantages. However, we have consulted widely with the organisations dealing with the various arguments on how best to pay child benefit, whether that is through tax or welfare mechanisms, or direct payments. There were perhaps 12 major suggestions but the one that has the most effect in helping marginalised people and those at the bottom is child benefit. It is the most expensive because it covers the entire spectrum but it has the greatest effect and it helps those who need it most. That is why the Government went with that system.
There was an initial three year programme and we then began a second three year programme. We must continue to put resources into this area and those resources will be decided at each budget. Enormous resources have been put into this area and the Government will continue to do that. There are those who dispute this system and those who say there are other ways, although I am not talking about organisations. I believe this is the fairest way and that is why, in the discussions on the PPF and subsequently, I argued that it was the best way if we are really interested in the elimination of poverty.
It must be almost five years since the concept of this working group was committed to in principle at the request of CORI and Fr. Seán Healy. Has the Government no intention of proceeding with this concept? If that is the case, can we move on to discussing ways of tackling real poverty in this society? Can the Taoiseach confirm that his Government has no intention of running with the basic income concept?
The Government did not wait for this report to tackle the problem. We have made more progress in this area than has probably ever been made, certainly in my lifetime, and the figures support that.
I do not agree that this approach can never work although it does not operate anywhere else in the world and no other country has adopted this system. We were asked to develop a model and Deputy Rabbitte knows we have gone across the world in that development. Experts from New Zealand and nearer home have worked on this to see if it is possible to create a model. We were asked to bring it to the stage of a Green Paper on Basic Income and to try to make sense of the various arguments. That has been done and the interested organisations, including CORI, Fr. Healy and others, have brought it to this stage and allowed for a meaningful debate to discover whether this country could establish what no other country had. That is the stage it is at.
I accept there are difficulties and that it is not an easy system to understand, in that one could set a basic income that would involve replacing existing social welfare, PRSI and personal taxation systems with a standard weekly payment system. It is not easy to visualise how that would be done and there are many problems and difficulties involved. I am not saying this could be done overnight but that is not what is asked. This is an attempt to find out whether there is a fairer and more transparent way of doing this. I have my doubts but I have pushed on to look at other systems around the world. There are no better systems than our own but many sociologists believe we could develop a fairer model than elsewhere. It is, admittedly, a partly academic exercise but it has at least been brought to a stage where many people are now taking an interest in this subject.
I appreciate there are difficulties but the debate has gone on for five years while the Taoiseach has been in Government. Will he run with it or will the debate continue for another five years? Why can Fr. Seán Healy not be told the truth which is that the Government has no intention of grasping the basic income concept? Is that not the truth? Why do we continue to say "on the one hand this and on the other hand that" and "we might and we might not"? Has the Government no intention of doing this?
From those comments, it is clear Deputy Rabbitte has not followed the debate for the past five years. That is not what the people involved in this have asked us to do. They have asked us to bring this issue to the position of a Green Paper. Fr. Healy recognised many times in the discussions that his original concept was not working and would not work. He made many changes to his system along the way as have the social partners and others who have worked on it. This is an academic exercise to find out if we can develop a better system. I remember some years ago Deputy Rabbitte, and others in this House, saying the tax credits system would never work. It is now fully implemented and the house did not fall down.
That is off the top of the Taoiseach's head. I never said that.
I did not say that Deputy Rabbitte said it. I said that there were plenty of people in this House who said it would never work. They said this Government would not implement it. Even in 1998, people were saying that the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, would never implement it but it is now fully implemented and things go on. I am being frank with the Deputy. There are major difficulties with the attempt to make this system work. However, there are many people passionate about this concept and I have continued to pursue it. They have not asked me to implement it but to bring it to a stage where we can have a meaningful debate and devise a system and a Green Paper. I have done that. It will not be implemented in the next Finance Bill but that is not its purpose.
I understand what the Taoiseach is saying about difficulties. Does he recognise that there are difficulties with the present system, given that the numbers living in relative income poverty are increasing steadily and stand at 20.9% compared to 17.4% in 1994? Does he also recognise that the concept of trying to redistribute income is unworkable under the present system?
In welcoming the Green Paper on guaranteed basic income is the Taoiseach encouraged and will he make plans to have it implemented as quickly as possible? Does he recognise that the Green Paper states it can be achieved without any resources additional to those available to conventional options, that it will encourage people to move from the unofficial economy into regular employment and that it will provide greater equity in the distribution of income in the country, which is something that has failed to be achieved despite our economic growth regime? Does he plan the introduction of a guaranteed basic income? I am more hopeful of this than Deputy Rabbitte because it would be logical. What is the plan?
I have agreed with those pressing this subject that we will continue the debate on the issue. That is what they are asking for now. They acknowledge and accept that there are difficulties with it. The Green Paper is a contribution to the debate on how best to approach reform of the tax and welfare systems. Also acknowledged and set out in the paper are the kinds of changes that would be required. Different opinions on how that change is reflected have been put forward. I have committed myself to continuing the process regardless of what happens in the PPF or post PPF talks. I have met with people involved and the Green Paper contributes to that process. I am not giving, nor have I been asked for, any commitment to those pressing this issue for the past five years. They want to examine it themselves. We have given them the data used in the various studies to examine and we will see where it goes from there. I do not write off the idea.
I have seen the social welfare and tax system change over the past number of years. Technology allows a lot more to be done now than would have been possible before. Taking the figures and other distribution effects into account, there are arguments worth researching further. I intend to do that. I will be frank and say that we are not at the stage where we could move on. There is more involved than income and there are other issues. The work done shows that the other issues can be included. One of the other issues is that 50% to 60% of people are under the normal disposable income. That factor can be taken into account.
The work done, particularly that carried out by Dr. Clarke from New Zealand, showed that these factors could be built in. My Department has worked hard on this and believes it is worth continuing with the work.
The Taoiseach is aware that the purpose of his Department's Green Paper on Basic Income was to facilitate and encourage further debate and discussion on the relevant issues. Does he agree that it has been unsuccessful because there is little public knowledge, awareness or debate about the concept of basic income? My party has not put forward a demand for a basic income but the issue does deserve thorough discussion particularly in the context of the fundamental review of our taxation and social welfare systems.
Over the past five years the richest 10% of the population has received 25% of the tax benefits and the poorest 20% a mere 5%. The Revenue Commissioners did a survey in 1997 which found that some of the top earners were paying little or nothing through the use of avoidance measures. One in five was paying tax at an effective rate of less than 5%. Will the Taoiseach support my call to repeat such a survey as part of a fundamental review of our tax system? It should include a review of the many loopholes which allow wealthy people to get away with paying little or nothing.
I remind the Deputy that the last budget provided the greatest gains to those at the bottom of the income scale. In reply to Deputy Rabbitte on another question yesterday I stated that I do not like inequitable tax exemption shelters and allowances. We have closed many of those over the years and, as I was reminded, opened a few too. Sometimes it is necessary to open some. We should try to have a straight line system so people know what the tax, such as corporation tax, is and there should not be shelters behind it. It is better if the system is designed so that people know what the tax is. This country is better than most but I do not use that as an excuse. I remind the Deputy that whenever we close a tax shelter, for example when we closed the holiday home tax incentive, there is almost a revolution in the House. I never saw so many Members seized over the issue as on that occasion.
Not the Green Party.
Last year when we had to reintroduce tax incentives for the commercial market there was unanimous support for that in the House because of the state of the construction industry. I was against that but could see the difficulties if it was not moved on. Many people like these concessions but I think it is better to have a straight line system where things are clear and there are as few concessions as possible, but that is not easy to achieve. We are having a review of the outstanding concessions and the Minister for Finance will probably surprise most people by closing practically all of them in the not too distant future.
Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that the aim of the concept of basic income is that every individual could live with basic decency and a modest level of comfort? Will he acknowledge also that, by contrast, there is a massive problem with low wages in this economy? Does he acknowledge that the national minimum wage of €6.35 per hour, or a miserable €13,208 per year, is impossible to live on with dignity and comfort? Will the Taoiseach see that figure against the fact that Bank of Ireland says that the average house price in Dublin will rise by €4,000 in the second six months of this year? Does he acknowledge that the Government could make an immediate contribution to lessening the pressure on those on low income by taking those on the national minimum wage out of the tax net completely? He could do that immediately.
In the context of the Taoiseach's last reply is it not obscene that when Irish citizens are living on €6.35 an hour, other citizens who earn hundreds of millions of euro a year can legally classify themselves as tax exiles so that they do not have to pay the extra taxation they should which would help to relieve the misery and pressure on those who are in difficult circumstances? Is the Taoiseach not completely hypocritical when he says he wants to close off these loopholes and tax shelters when he was not prepared to take his own friends to task on this? He took his friend "Sundance" to his bosom to assist the white elephant at Abbotstown because he was going to make a £50 million contribution to the scheme. Is the Taoiseach not guilty of double standards in this regard? If he seriously believes—
The Deputy should ask a brief question.
If the Taoiseach seriously believes the super rich should pay on the same basis as everyone else, then the Government can do it in the budget in a month's time on 4 or 5 December.
In answer to Deputy Ó Caoláin, I stated my views on these tax issues and shelters.
The Taoiseach did not.
There is a reality that some people are wealthier than others and neither I nor the Deputy are going to change that.
We can.
Deputy Higgins should allow the Taoiseach to speak.
It does not happen by magic.
Deputy Higgins should allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.
All we do is try to make the tax system as fair as possible and ensure people pay taxes. I am long enough in the world to realise that people pay taxes in different ways. One can cite the old argument but the fact remains that, when what the rich pay in tax is added up, much more tax is probably gained from them in different ways.
I do not think so.
That is the way the cookie crumbles.
It is done through soft soaping them.
No, it is not done through that method. We tried the other method of high taxes, super taxes, surcharge taxes and enormous corporation taxes. What we managed to do was force 250,000 people to emigrate, create enormously high unemployment with no investment and send the economy down the tubes.
That is a simplistic analysis.
We tried that trick and it did not work.
What contribution did the 1977 Government programme make?
We tried another way and created hundreds of thousands of jobs and gave real dignity to people by helping them escape poverty through allowing them to work. The Deputy and I know that.
No, I do not.
I know the Deputy meant to but forgot to say that he was happy that I fought for, achieved and implemented the minimum wage. I accept his argument that it should be higher but at least he should acknowledge, and I know he will do it the next chance he gets, that we have a minimum wage that is higher than most countries. While I am unsure what action will be taken this year given that it is a budgetary matter, I agree with the Deputy that we should work as quickly as possible to try to get people on the minimum wage out of the tax net. It is the stated position of the Government and the sooner we achieve that, the better.
Will the Taoiseach comment on the findings of the working group on basic income that showed that a significant number of those in the bottom four income deciles, that is, the lowest 40%, would be worse off on a basic income than under the current system? In that context, has the Taoiseach given any thought to the creation of a social solidarity fund or, arising from that, has he asked for or requested that further research be carried out to ensure that, if the basic income scheme is introduced, the lowest 40% of income earners would not be adversely affected? Has the Taoiseach any proposals for further research to be conducted on this?
The point made by Deputy Kenny was examined because there was criticism during the course of the work that the basic income would entail a loss of weekly income for people whose social welfare entitlements would be higher than the basic rate. When this was brought to the attention of the Conference of Religious in Ireland, it had an economist produce a modified version to surmount the problem. This posited the concept of a social solidarity fund which Deputy Kenny mentioned. The idea was to cushion the impact for groups during the transition to a basic income.
It is possible, but it is worth restating that the difficulty is that a basic income involves replacing the social welfare, PRSI and personal taxation systems. It is a major change. It replaces tax rates and credits with a standard weekly payment for all citizens. There is a concept that there could be different rates for children. That was examined and it is possible. After that, all income earned other than the basic income would be taxed at a flat rate. There is much discussion, debate and argument about what constitutes a flat rate and how it would work. The idea is that a basic income would be fairer to less well-off people.
The current system does not work, as Deputy Kenny said, but that is not to say it is not possible to adjust it. It will take considerable examination. Having brought it to this stage, I hope the Green Paper is examined. As I said in reply to Deputy Rabbitte earlier, this is not something that will happen in a year or two. It will take a considerable time to implement it. There are those who oppose it because they believe the rate of tax required to implement it would be so excessive and punitive that it would never work.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, is one of them.
I will not say who in the House opposes it. Many on all sides of the House have done so. There is that argument while there is also the question of whether the public would like the basic income system. It is designed to try to get people out of the tax net. For years we debated how we could deal with the problems in the tax system and this idea came from that to try to devise a way around those problems. Lower taxes are part of the issue but are not the only part. This is the other side of the argument and the discussion will continue for some considerable time.
No one is saying that the research and work on this is finished. The first time research on this began in any form was ten or 15 years ago. It will continue for some time into the future.
Do I understand the Taoiseach's position to be that there are wealthy and poor people and that the poor will always be with us? Being the inclusive Taoiseach he is, he throws his arms around Deputy Joe Higgins and says neither he nor the Deputy will do anything about it. Does he not acknowledge that Deputy Higgins in his own way is doing something, but that he is the Taoiseach and the question is to him?
Yes. Hear, hear.
Has the Government any intention of implementing the recommendations of the report on the Combat Poverty Agency issue I raised earlier? I know the Taoiseach has not read it and will therefore ask questions in the following manner. Would he be willing to implement the recommendation of a minimum social welfare rate of €150? Would he be interested in implementing the recommended child health programme given that the Government is reneging on its promise to extend the eligibility for medical cards? Is the Government minded to give what it calls significant increases in child dependant allowance?
The Taoiseach mentioned the national minimum wage. Does he accept that it is being abrogated by a number of employers who employ non-nationals in what is effectively a form of bonded labour? Is it the Government's intention to address that issue?
The Deputy asked me a number of questions. On the question of action, we have moved on that which is why so many people are working now and we are not back in the era of high emigration, unemployment, people paying excessive taxes and no decent facilities.
No infrastructure.
That is why we have moved on so much from that. I am proud to have been involved in such actions.
Deputy Rabbitte did not listen to the point I made on taxation to Deputy Higgins. I said there were more ways of obtaining tax from wealthy people than just through the income tax system. Wealthy people are in business. They are involved in wealth-generating activities and spend money on goods which are subject to VAT. There are other ways of obtaining tax from them. Wealthy people in any country will always use whatever system is available to lower their relative tax rate. They can use their expenses and capital investments. That is how business operates and it seems to be acceptable to the vast majority of people. Whenever people try to change that, it does not work so simply. That is the point I am making.
It is a question of balance.
I agree with that. I do not think anybody should do that. I said to the Deputy yesterday and to Deputy Ó Caoláin today that people should not get away scot-free. They should be rewarded for enterprise and for employing people, but they should not get away with an unfair burden. I accept that.
The Taoiseach knows that people are getting away scot-free.
I accept that and that is why I told the Deputy yesterday there is an examination of all the shelters. However, as I pointed out to Deputy Ó Caoláin, when I tried to move some of these shelters, the Deputy will recall the difficulty in which I found myself with Deputies, business groups and trade unions. It is very difficult to remove these measures because in their own way they have a knock-on effect. Having said that, we are better off having straight-line tax systems. That is why in recent years we have worked to eliminate many of the tax shelters that existed, but it is difficult to do so. Last year we saw what happened in the construction industry. If it were possible to do away with measures in one fell swoop it would be good, as I am aware from personal experience. In one budget – I think it was in 1993 – we looked at all the concessionary taxes and allowances. There were about 120 of them and we got rid of about 70 or 80 of them. This allowed me to bring down the top rate of tax by 4% in very difficult times. Obviously, getting rid of these shelters resulted in a saving.
In the national anti-poverty strategy, NAPS, we are committed to moving substantially. We have made commitments setting out the basic rates, which are on the public record. As resources permit, although these will be tight, these should go to the less well off and I will do my utmost to see that happens in the coming years.
The Taoiseach said this issue has been discussed over a number of years. For the Green Party, it has been discussed for the past 21 years – it was a founding policy of our party. Does the Taoiseach agree there is a need for a fundamental review not only of income distribution, but also of how taxation is collected? For example, we are asking for less of a tax burden on labour through income tax and that that proportionately would be replaced by a greater tax burden on finite resources. These kinds of issues need to be addressed to ensure long-term sustainability as well as fair tax collection and distribution of income. Has this arisen as part of the discussions on the Green Paper? Those who have been dismissive of a guaranteed basic income, GBI, on the basis of increased income tax failed to see there is a need to reform taxation policy so it is not wholly reliant on income tax, which is unsustainable as well as being a disincentive for employment.
I acknowledge the work that has been done. Most of the issues the Deputy mentions have come up. One issue that always comes up, as the Deputy correctly points out, is that the tax base here is very narrow compared with other countries. There are historical and policy reasons for that which makes it difficult to—
Will the budget change that?
The ongoing reform of the tax system is always important. We will never reach a stage where reform of the tax and welfare systems will stop. Widening the system is clearly a big issue here and will continue to be so. Even excluding the ups and downs of the economic cycle, the ageing of our population will drive that. It would be remiss of us not to look at that. Within a little more than a decade that will become a real issue. The only way for this country to continue to do well is to widen the tax base. The Deputy and I do not disagree on that.
The tax credit system has introduced considerable fairness into the system. We have made substantial improvements in bringing about equity. The introduction of tax credits by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, has been an excellent reform of the system.
In the course of the examination of the concept of basic income, the figure for the administration cost of social welfare was shown to be between 10% and 15%. Advocates of the basic income have pointed out that that amount would go considerably towards paying it. I listened with great care to what the Taoiseach had to say. Will he agree the case for basic income is made out of a rights perspective, specifically so that it could include those who are out of the tax net at either end, as a result of being too young, too poor or retired?
I found it extraordinary that the Taoiseach stated that even where the concept of basic income had been accepted, there was no place where it had been implemented. That is not my experience of the international literature. Will the Taoiseach not agree that basic income is one of the concepts that is now in favour to help address global poverty? I cannot understand why the Taoiseach is ignoring the scandalously high cost – up to 15% – of implementing a "poor law" means test in social welfare. At the same time he is saying he needs ten or 15 years to see the case for basic income on a rights basis.
In his response to my earlier question, the Taoiseach indicated a review was under way. As part of that review is there a repeat of the survey that I had mentioned was undertaken by the Revenue Commissioners in 1997? Is that a component part of the current review that will influence thinking in advance of the budget?
Does the Taoiseach agree the basic income for workers in this State could be hugely increased if that sector which is availing of tax shelters, tax exile status, etc. paid the same amount as everybody else? Is the Taoiseach aware that other states in the EU regard this State as a kind of tax shelter for major corporations because the Taoiseach actually champions minuscule corporation taxes? In an economy now moving to 500 million—
I would like to let your colleague, Deputy Breen, speak, but it may not be possible if you continue with a statement.
Will the Taoiseach agree we cannot take his professions for taxation fairness seriously when these tax exiles are his honoured guests? The richest sheik in Arabia does not have more millionaires parading through his tent at the Galway races than the Taoiseach. If he is serious let him show it in the budget.
In answer to the point made by Deputy Michael Higgins, I said 15 years were spent on the research, I did not say it would take 15 years. The studies show there is not a basic income. There has been no model of a basic income internationally. When the research was done, it was found there was no similar model of basic income anywhere in the organised world. No country, either inside or outside the OECD, has put together a basic income—
The United Nations Commission for Europe has published a document.
People might have published documents or research findings, but I am referring to the implementation of a basic income system. I agree that we are ahead. That is because we have spent time and effort on it and I have no difficulty with it. As I said earlier to Deputies Kenny and Sargent, the reform of the tax and social welfare systems continues and there has been more work on this Green Paper. There is considerable interest in this from the trade union movement and sociologists. I have met many of them and we have put a lot of effort into it together. They all acknowledge that we have not found the model but, equally, that child benefit, the minimum wage and the non-taxation of it are steps in the right direction. The basic income is a different system, where everybody is on the same income but one has a tax system where rates must be far higher than at present and that is the big disadvantage.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked about the report of the Revenue Commissioners. I am not sure to which report he refers but any examination of tax shelters will concern all reports they have. Deputy Joe Higgins made a point about corporation tax. We are criticised by our European partners for having high corporation tax but many other countries have tax shelters and other hidden ways of dealing with corporation tax. They claim the basic rate of corporation tax is 40% but they do separate deals. I will not name the countries involved but I am sure Deputies will know them. When we argued our case on corporation tax in 1998, many European countries, including Germany and France who were our biggest critics, were doing individual deals and other countries have other arrangements. The real level of corporation tax in some cases is zero. Our system is far more transparent on corporation tax than the vast majority of countries.
Is the Taoiseach arguing for a uniform system which would be more successful?
They allow write-offs and special agreements which one could not allow in this country because a debate would be demanded in the House. In other countries it appears to be quite acceptable.
We should consider research and development grants.
Our system is fairer, generates far greater employment and does an excellent job for the country. A lower rate taxation system along with not giving concessions is a far better way of doing that.
What gives the lie to the suggestion that Deputies do not like tax shelters is that one of the main topics of correspondence to one as Taoiseach is bright ideas from individuals and Deputies on all sides of the House suggesting innovative ways for businesses to pay less tax.