Richard Boyd Barrett: Tax Multimillionaires to Help Renters?

Minister, whichever way you cut it, are you not, I mean because we all agree there needs to be additional resources, supports and so on for children with special needs, absolutely but the way you've put this out is essentially to set that off against a levy being imposed in other departments where less is going to be spent in 2027 in other departments because rightly you've decided to prioritise special needs but doesn't that inevitably mean other areas are, things are going to be tighter and you see I just want to follow on from Deputy Murray Farrell's contribution because it's not one individual, Tánaiste, I have, there's a pattern emerging in my clinic and I suspect if we go round the house we're going to see this, I am now getting people coming in who can't pay their rent, their council tenants who can't pay their rent and who can't pay their bills on a level I haven't seen before, right, it's ratcheting up and they can't get help because often when you say this to the government you say oh you can go for, on certain things you can go for an exceptional needs payment but for ongoing, recurring as they call them, issues like rent you can't get help from the community welfare officer, so I've now found people who want to pay their rent but just can't make it add up, right, and some of them are now being hit by increased council rent, just to top, to make it even worse, when everything's gone up they can't manage it and they're falling into arrears on their rent and their energy bills and they're asking where do we go, these are not people who are fluhuluk or anything they're living on absolutely derisory incomes, low incomes and they can't make it add up, now they need help, they need help and I'm worried from what the government is saying that actually there's going to be less available to help them because we've made the correct decision, the correct decision, and it is a correct decision to put more resources because you underestimated how much needed to be put into special needs and so on, now can I just ask, is there not another alternative instead of playing those two off against each other, which is doing, I don't want to go into the detail because I haven't studied the detail, but Mandani is pointing to an alternative, tax the multimillionaires, and he's claiming at least that he's now reversed a deficit and made additional spending in a whole number of areas possible in childcare and affordable housing and so on and so forth by imposing a tax on the multimillionaires, which is something we've been proposing to you for a very very long time, because the multimillionaires are doing very well, the number of them has increased, net household wealth in this country has gone up consistently, dramatically increased, could we not impose a small wealth tax on the multimillionaires, which according to Oxfam could generate billions, and that that would be a better way to cover the additional spending we need to do in special needs and also have money available for things like people who can't pay their rent, right, so that we do actually either increase their payments or expand schemes like exceptional needs or not increase their rents, so that's my question to you. So we, both of us might just, two aspects to your question, one relates to expenditure, what I would say is that your point would stand if we were to freeze spending at 118.5 billion for next year, but actually it's in the context of expenditure due to increase to 125.5 billion, so there's an expansionary track for 2027 and the expenditure levy is being applied for all of 2027, so in fact we're not pitching one area against another, what we're saying is there's a need to drive efficiencies, reforms and productivity across all government departments and agencies, notwithstanding the decision relating to the Department of Education, and it's better financial management, it's a better longer term fiscal path to use that in terms of having a levy when additional priorities emerge, and this is a standard, this is used by many administrations across the world, so I think we're reprioritising and it's in the context of a growing expenditure line, and essentially by forcing departments to drive greater efficiencies in an expanding budgetary environment, there's huge scope to do a lot more across many areas, so it's not, your point would stand if it was to stop at the current position. Can I ask you just one question before the tonnage is probably going to come in as well, but is that with inflation and with the demographic changes, which mean that just to stand still you have to spend more anyway, is the actuality not... You're making the assumption that we can't drive efficiencies or productivity enhancements in the public service, I don't accept that as a matter of, I don't accept your kind of hypothesis or assumption that solely by looking at inflation and the cost of how we do things today that things can't be improved without just adding more, and I think the public service and departments and agencies need to drive greater efficiencies as a matter of policy. I'd like to know what the efficiencies are. Well, ultimately that's what will deliver better outcomes for people we all represent, if service delivery is improved with the level of spending which has increased in the last five years, and having as much focus on that in the context of budgetary planning, I think will yield better delivery for all of us and for all the people we represent, and that's why we're prioritizing it in the context of our management of the economy and within our budgetary planning. And no, never wealth taxes. We'll be a very progressive system, Tom, I should speak to that. Thanks, Minister. Look, a couple of things. I mean, we were only looking at this as recently as yesterday. I mean, public expenditure in this country has gone from about £67 billion just before the pandemic to £118 billion this year, even allowing for inflation and the likes. That's a very significant level of expenditure. And I think all of us, I think it behoves all of us in government and opposition to ask the question, is there more benefit we can see for our citizens in relation to that? Because I'm no longer convinced that it's just about writing a cheque in terms of the improvement of the lives of our citizens. Of course there's a need for continued investment, but the work that Minister Chambers is leading on I support. Can I just briefly on the interest, and I won't take long. We already have a very progressive income tax system. I mean, 80% of income tax is paid by the top 20% of income earners in this country. I mean, by any measure, we have a very progressive income tax system. The more you earn, the more you pay, and indeed there's many, many people now who have been taken out of paying any income tax at all in Ireland. And in fact, sometimes when you look at the IMF and the likes, they highlight that in terms of the narrowing of the tax base as a risk too. So I'm very satisfied that our income tax system is progressive. Thank you.