On Corporation Tax
(Irish Independent October 5th 2010)
European Commissioner Olli Rehn is reported as indicating that “Ireland will not continue as a low-tax country. But it will rather become a normal tax country in the European context” (Irish Independent, October 2). Amid the headlines in national newspapers in relation to his remarks that focused on the status of Ireland’s low corporation tax rate, it should be noted that Mr Rehn did not explicitly recommend the raising of this tax rate. There is no doubt, however, that his comments have caused this matter to come under particular review. The clear rationale for any rise in taxation would be as a revenue-raising measure to help tackle the deficit.
It is obvious that raising the corporation tax significantly would likely be cost-negative to the State in terms of future lost investment arising from any such increase, so this cannot be realistically considered from a deficit-reduction viewpoint. In judging what tax increases should be initiated, the level of possible revenue to be raised is not the only consideration. A corporation tax rise would cause a particularly strong deflationary effect in the economy as it is, by its very nature, a form of taxation inherently associated with job stability and creation. Ireland is a small country and does not therefore benefit from the same economies of scale that can operate in larger countries. We should not be expected to alter the setting of a tax rate which is the most appropriate one given the size of our economy. The Government has the relevant volition in this area and the extensive level of debate held on the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 and 2009 indicated that economic sovereignty is a major factor influencing future confidence in the European project. This holds not just amongst Irish citizens, but for those in other member states. On that basis, Mr Rehn’s comments were ill-chosen, given that they gave rise to negative speculation regarding the EU at a time when the benefits of European integration should be emphasised as a result of extensive economic cooperation during the current fiscal crisis.
Reform of the electoral system
(Irish Times July 29th 2010)
Madam, – The cross-party committee on the Constitution (Home News, July 23rd), produced a comprehensive report regarding Article 16 of the Constitution, which referred to the electoral system and its possible reform, and produced 29 recommendations in total. Surprisingly, there is no set recommendation in the report, however, regarding the introduction of national seats, such as in a “list system”, though much recent debate has focused on this proposal (both in the report itself and notably in a number of opinion pieces in The Irish Times ). Section 4.40 of the report stated with reference to possible reform of the electoral system in this regard that “the PR element could comprise a single national constituency or could work on the basis of regional constituencies”, both of which methods could be implemented through the structure of a list system. An additional angle that was not reviewed in the report would be the proposal to introduce a number of randomised national constituencies in the Dáil (whereby candidates and voters are assigned a national constituency division by lottery rather than by geography). This would meet the much-voiced need to have national seats while at the same time dividing the number of voters for such seats in order to alleviate the extent to which the possession of substantial financial resources and/or relative fame would otherwise be effective prerequisites for election. Adding national seats would be one of the better ways to improve the electoral system and the fact that there is no defined recommendation in relation to their introduction is one of the more significant aspects of the report. – Yours, etc,
Holding three byelections
(Irish Times July 13th 2010)
Madam, – I was alarmed to read that Government Senator Dan Boyle recently suggested “the Donegal South West byelection should be held in the autumn along with the mayoral election, while the Dublin South and Waterford byelections could be held at a later date” (Home News, July 10th). What possible rationale could exist for such an awkward arrangement? No practical reason exists for the byelections to be held on separate dates. One of the more dubious explanations proffered for the unwarranted delay in the holding of the pending byelections was the claim by the Government Chief Whip, John Curran TD, that it would be inappropriate for the Dublin South byelection to go ahead now because the Dáil “is in the middle of an extremely busy legislative programme” (Home News, June 24th). Utilising Mr Curran’s logic, it is obvious that the byelections should be held together in order to minimise disruption to the Dáil’s plenary schedule. Responding to pressure from the Opposition in the Dáil on February 3rd, 2009 for the then pending Dublin South byelection to be called, the Government Chief Whip at that time, Pat Carey TD, commented that “taking into account the upcoming local and European Parliament elections scheduled to take place this June, I would like to confirm that the Government intends to run the byelection for Dublin South on the same day. We will move the writ accordingly for that purpose. On a day such as this, when stark economic decisions have had to be taken, Deputies from all sides will understand the sense in minimising the cost to the Exchequer in running elections. The Government believes this is the prudent approach. We do this while fully accepting the right of the people of Dublin South to full and proper representation. ”Accordingly, the suggestion that the Donegal South-West byelection could be held first separately is considerably disrespectful to the people of Dublin South and Waterford regarding their right to due representation in the Dáil.The citizens of all three constituencies continue to be unfairly disenfranchised while the Government refuses to sanction the announcement of dates for these byelections. – Yours, etc,
Reducing the pay of judges
(Irish Times December 21st 2009)
Madam, – I would concur with John Stafford (December 18th), in that the spirit of the law would dictate that the constitutional prohibition on reducing the pay of judges would not apply if proposed salary cuts were applied across the board to all public servants.
However, a constitutional referendum would be needed in order to allow the invoking of defined pay cuts as the letter of the law would, in contrast, clearly be broken in this case. A different scenario should pertain to the application of the public service pension levy introduced last year, however. The letter of the law would not be broken if the levy was applied also to the judiciary, given that the term “remuneration” in the Constitution should be regarded as meaning “remuneration before deductions”, unless otherwise qualified. This is already illustrated in practice by the fact that judges suffer financially whenever income tax is increased. – Yours, etc,
Impact of flooding
(Irish Times December 2nd 2009)
Madam, – The Green Party has for many years predicted that extra flooding would be a consequence of climate change, so it would appear strange to me that, in Government, they have not put in place the measures that would have helped reduce the extent of the current damage being caused across the country. Moreover, a debate occurred in the Dáil in November 2004 in which Trevor Sargent TD and Eamon Ryan TD challenged the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern TD, regarding the then Fianna Fáil-led government’s lax attitude to flooding prevention and anticipation. Of particular note was that when Mr Ahern was challenged on the fact that building on flood plains such as in Clonmel, Lucan and Dunboyne was extremely ill-advised, part of his reply was: “Regarding building on plains, since the population has risen by one million since 1973 that extra million people must live somewhere”. As far as I am concerned, one of the greatest legacy scandals of the boom years was what I perceived to be the relative ill-treatment of young people with regards to the provision of housing. As is now readily acknowledged, those starting out in their professional careers were blatantly overcharged for the simple need of a roof over their heads. Now it is clear that the government of that time knew that there was a timebomb associated with many of the new developments that were specifically targeted at commuters. Mr Sargent also stated then the need for quay walls in Cork to prevent flooding damage that he felt was inevitable. Therefore, I find that one of the saddest parts of the misery being heaped upon thousands of people across Ireland is that this national lack of preparedness for future flooding was criticised five years ago by a party whose leader has been the responsible Minister for its prevention for over two years. – Yours, etc,
Impact of carbon tax
(Irish Times October 19th 2009)
Madam, – Frank Convery, in looking at the case for a carbon tax (Opinion, 15th), doesn’t make reference to one particular section of Irish society who would be severely impacted by the introduction of such a tax. Among the hardest hit by the recession are those who purchased homes in commuter towns during the boom years and are now in negative equity. In many cases, public transport infrastructure has not been updated sufficiently well in these towns and the use of cars remains essential to commuter life. Young professionals in such areas also tend to be more adversely affected by salary cuts and unemployment than other demographics, taking into account the average dearth of savings accrued given typically expensive mortgage repayments that need to be made regularly. It is simply unfair to suggest that commuters with no realistic public transport alternative should face an expensive further tax on fuel in simply travelling to the workplace, and if the carbon tax is to be introduced, an exemption scheme for those affected by negative equity would clearly need to be implemented. – Yours, etc,
On Government Health Policy
(Irish Independent August 6th 2008)
THE fact that just 10 extra inpatient beds have been provided in the last three years (Irish Independent, August 4) illustrates a major failure in Government policy. Instead of focusing on providing more public hospital beds directly, the Government has concocted its much vaunted co-location policy to relieve the strain on public beds. However, this plan is not the most beneficial one for public or private patients. People pay for voluntary health insurance on the basis that they expect to receive a better standard of care as a result. Therefore, any scheme to create more private hospitals for private patients would lead to the expectation that such hospitals would provide superior healthcare. If such private hospitals developed a reputation for being no better than public hospitals, then the incentive to subscribe to voluntary health insurance would disappear. On that basis, it should be fully expected that co-located private hospitals would effectively be prioritised for funding and facilities above public hospitals. This has huge implications. The health service is already two-tiered and the co-location plan would further segregate it. It was noted in the Irish Independent on May 17 that co-located private clinics could cost the State close to €1bn over seven years. It is likely that co-located hospitals will also increase the cost of private insurance, especially in the aftermath of the recent Supreme Court ruling on risk equalisation. Some voluntary health insurance subscribers might then be unable to afford the premium. As a result of co-location, funds will be taken from the taxpayer and turned into private profits, when they could instead, be retained within the public heath service. The €1bn could be used to create more public beds than the projected 1,000 private beds the co-located plan is supposed to deliver. Mary Harney should look from the angle of what is best for the State as a whole. Such an approach means, as much as is possible, ensuring every citizen has an equitable right to healthcare, and that means moving to a system of universal health insurance.
