Mattie McGrath: Accuses Minister of Breaking Promise to Abolish USA
Mattie McGrath criticised the minister for failing to abolish the USA despite manifesto and programme for government commitments. He said raising thresholds or tinkering with bands does not constitute abolition and argued the change is unfair to ordinary working people.
McGrath told the minister that a clear promise was made to "abolish the USA" in the manifesto and in commitments in the programme for government. He said abolition means it should be gone - not adjusted or partially removed.
He rejected the idea of minor adjustments, saying "abolish" means finito, gone, not "tinkle around with the bands and raise it a bit." McGrath presented abolition as an absolute commitment rather than a gradual change.
McGrath criticised the proposal to move someone at 45,000 out of the charge, arguing that it does not amount to abolition. He said the measure is not a fair level of tax relief because people on higher incomes can secure more benefit than ordinary working people.
McGrath also accused parties of staging a "phony argument between Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin," saying the public will notice the inconsistency between promises and the proposed approach. He challenged the minister's credibility on the issue, questioning how the government can justify the change given prior commitments.
Allegation of a broken promise
McGrath told the minister that a clear promise was made to "abolish the USA" in the manifesto and in commitments in the programme for government. He said abolition means it should be gone - not adjusted or partially removed.
Abolition versus tinkering
He rejected the idea of minor adjustments, saying "abolish" means finito, gone, not "tinkle around with the bands and raise it a bit." McGrath presented abolition as an absolute commitment rather than a gradual change.
Concerns about the proposed change
McGrath criticised the proposal to move someone at 45,000 out of the charge, arguing that it does not amount to abolition. He said the measure is not a fair level of tax relief because people on higher incomes can secure more benefit than ordinary working people.
Political context and public perception
McGrath also accused parties of staging a "phony argument between Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin," saying the public will notice the inconsistency between promises and the proposed approach. He challenged the minister's credibility on the issue, questioning how the government can justify the change given prior commitments.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Danny Healy-Rae
Danny Healy-Rae demands action on pension rebates and health waits
Richard Boyd Barrett
Richard Boyd Barrett: Proposes Wealth Tax to Scrap USC
Danny Healy-Rae
Danny Healy-Rae urges Ukraine scheme for vacant homes
Paul Murphy
Paul Murphy urges Ireland to endorse fossil fuel treaty
Verona Murphy
Verona Murphy urges automatic fuel allowance for cancer patients
Danny Healy-Rae
Danny Healy-Rae criticises minister over VAT and business costs
Transcript
It's just the public watching, and if they're watching, and see this phony argument between Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin, the real thing is, you made the promise, Minister, that you were going to abolish the USA. Abolish, that means finito. Gone. Not tinkle around with the bands and raise it a bit, and everything else, but you made the promise in your manifesto, and commitments in your program for government, that you'd abolish it. So, how can you have credibility now in moving someone at 45,000 out of it, and it's not a fair level tax, because, as I said, people on higher income can get more relief from it than ordinary working people. So, as I said, where's the credibility?