Snippet data - viewing only, no editing possible


Label

Field name

Field value


Sitting_Date

11/05/2014 12:00:00 AM


Sitting_Forum


Snippet Ref No

SnippetRefNo

M00300

Selected Quill

SnippetType

1

Saved Quill

SnippetType_C4D


Selected Quill

SnippetType_1

1

Speaker Name

IndxSpeakerName

Murphy, Paul

Business Category

IndxMainHeadCat

Bills

Sub Category

IndxSubTopic

Finance Bill 2014

Topic

IndxQHeadTopic

Second Stage

See Also

SeeAlso


Part1

TitlePart1


Part2

TitlePart2


Part3

TitlePart3


Volume

VolumeNo

856

Book No

BookNo

2

Pdf Ref

PdfPageRef

704

Default Business Index

IndexViewCategoryDefault


3 Part Title Business Index

IndexViewCategoryTitle


Default Topic Index

IndexViewCategoryDefaultSpeaker

Finance Bill 2014\Second Stage
Bills\Finance Bill 2014\Second Stage

3 Part Topic Index

IndexViewCategoryTitleSpeaker


Motion Code

MotionCode


Motion Title

MotionTitle


Stage

MotionStage


Amendment No

MotionAmendmentNo


Bill Code

BillCode

B2r

Bill Title

BillTitle

Finance Bill 2014

Stage

BillStage

Second Stage (Resumed)

Section

BillSection


Statement Code

StatementCode


Statement Title

StatementTitle


Stage

StatementStage


Hour Indicator

HourIndicator

Not applicable

Procedural Instruction

Procedural_Instruction

No

Debate Adjourned

DebateAdjourned

No

Question Askee

QAskee


Question Asker

QAsker


Question Department

QDept


Question ID

QID


Question Reference

QRef


Question Speaker PID

QSpeakerPID


Question Speaker PID To

QSpeakerPIDTo


Questions Asked

QUESTIONSASKED


Speaker Type

SpeakerType

1

Speaker Name

Senator


Deputy


Minister


Witness


Chairman


ViceChairman


ActingChairmanD


ActingChairmanS


Speaker4Display

Speaker4Display

Deputy Paul Murphy

Speaker

Speaker

Deputy Paul Murphy

SpeakerPID

SpeakerPID

PaulMurphy

SpeakerText

SpeakerText

Paul Murphy

OriginalUnidSnippet

OriginalUnidSnippet

D26F038AB3C60BF780257D87004AC2FA

LastModifiedSnippet

LastModifiedSnippet

09/22/2016 12:11:28 PM

TopicIndex1stCategoryValues

TopicIndex1stCategoryValues

Snippet Contents:

The Finance Bill tells a tale of two different budgets. One of these budgets is for working class people, the most vulnerable and unemployed people. It is a budget which, in effect, ensures the continuance of austerity for them. The other budget is a recovery budget for the rich, high earners, developers and corporations. The weekend before the budget was announced, the headline on the front page of The Sunday Business Post referred to the end of austerity and gains for top earners, builders and farmers. The article was correct in so far as the budget did signal the end of austerity for those groups as well as for private landlords. However, alongside this recovery for the 1%, the budget continues the logic of austerity for the 99%.
This continuation of austerity for ordinary people is clear in the cut of €179 million in the budget of the Department of Social Protection, which is the largest cut for any Department in this budget. We have a continuation of the incredibly cruel cut of 20% in the respite care grant, which has had a huge impact on people with disabilities and their families. Many of them depended on this money to pay bills and to cover the extra costs of having a disability. Even at this late stage, I urge the Minister to reverse that cut at a time when recovery has supposedly arrived.
Under this budget, an unemployed single person will benefit by 90 cent per week. A single person earning €75,000 per year will benefit by €14.30 per week. For those on low incomes, the scraps given in this budget will be more than wiped out by the water charges. The latter are central to the continuation of this austerity agenda but the reality is that people simply cannot afford to pay them. The water charges may start at the €200 the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, promised yesterday, but will quickly rise once the caps are lifted. The propaganda by the Government on water charges has undergone a significant shift. Originally it was all about conservation and asking everybody to pay their way to facilitate the investment in infrastructure that is needed. Now the Government is arguing that this was all a trick on the European Commission and troika, a way of fiddling the numbers that would cost us very little and save us money in the long run. That is the latest propaganda from the Government.
The reality is that whether the money is off balance sheet or on balance sheet, it is money that has to be found and the question remains as to how it will be raised. There is a great deal of talk about the fact that taking it off balance sheet will meet the market conditions test. However, a requirement of the market conditions test is that the seller acts to maximise its profit. The Government accuses us of scaremongering about privatisation and rising costs. However, the Government's argument for water charges is built on the foundation of a test that says the seller must act to maximise its profit. Irish Water will have to negotiate with the Commission for Energy Regulation to eliminate the allowances. It will have to make the argument that the price, which is already double what corporations pay, should go up over time. That commodification of the water supply points ultimately to privatisation.
Looking at the other side of the budget, the benefit for high earners on €70,000 or more will be four times that of the gain for those on minimum wage. The budget includes a specific measure, the elimination of the cap on the special assignee relief programme, SARP, which is targeted at a very particular class of people, namely, CEOs and similar earning more than €500,000. It is incredible that the Government would take time to allocate a special tax relief for those earning €500,000 or more. This is a developers' budget. The elimination of the windfall tax, in particular, is simply incredible. The Government has dressed it up as somehow being intended to ensure more homes are built. It will not lead to any more homes being built, but it will give more profits to developers. There is a deficient level of house building not because of the existence of this tax but because of the absence of investment by the State in this area. Such investment is at an all-time low. We are going back to allowing these people to speculate on land and make huge profits while ordinary people who are simply looking for somewhere to live pay the price.
This is also a budget for private landlords, who benefit from the extension of the home renovation incentive to rental properties. It seems the explosion in rental costs being paid by ordinary people has not been sufficient to enable landlords to shell out for some new furniture. We must incentivise them with a tax break. In his Budget Statement the Minister expressed his expectation that these tax savings would be reflected in rent levels. That is a joke. If the Minister lived in the real world and interacted with landlords, he would know they will take whatever they can and raise rents as high as they possibly can.