Madam, - As Noel Whelan points out (Opinion, October 25th), we saw some lavish promises being made in general election manifestos last year, even though it was widely expected that Ireland would be facing economic difficulties this year. The result is a palpable lack of coherent planning and vision in the current Government.
The National Development Plan is a case in point, where a huge cloud of uncertainly regarding future projects has developed. The Budget has been a rushed, disjointed hotchpotch.
If there is one harsh lesson that must be learnt from this is that the race to make the most popular and generous promises at election time is a race to the bottom for the country. Sobriety should return to Irish election politics, where the parties with the most pragmatic, fiscally prudent and sustainable policies should always be preferred to those with the more fashionable and unrealistic ones.
The Government now has a significantly reduced mandate from the people. The Green Party could salvage some of its damaged reputation by withdrawing from Government and calling for a general election to be held. The citizens of Ireland deserve a chance to vote on what difficult decisions now need to be made. - Yours, etc,
JOHN KENNEDY,
Knocknashee,
Goatstown,
Dublin 14.
Madam, - You are to be commended for proposing a long overdue discussion of taxation policy. In that spirit I would like to make the case for the most obvious and necessary first step - a comprehensive, regionally levied, property tax. There are at least five good reasons why Ireland should have a property tax.
1. Fairness: Many public services such as policing, the fire service, water supply, waste disposal and street maintenance are effectively social costs of property, yet they are currently funded by a tax on people's incomes, not on their property holding. The abolition of domestic rates in 1977 removed the link between ownership of private property and the cost of public services. So we now have the laughable situation where property ownership costs nothing while those on modest incomes, saving to buy a first home, pay tax to cover the social costs of other people's property.
2. Redistribution: Inequality increasing during the recent economic boom, notably because those who already owned property gained most. This was helped, no doubt, by such perverse concessions as "Section 23", which exempted landlords from paying tax on rental income as long as they continued to buy more property. A modest tax on the total value of property owned would raise significant revenue from those who can well afford to pay, and effect a small degree of redistribution without adding significantly to the rate of inflation.
3. Ability to Pay: It was argued, disingenuously to say the least, that the minuscule Residential Property Tax was unjust on people who owned valuable property but had low incomes. No such argument is made for those with reasonable incomes but no property. Even the small subsidy towards the acquisition of one's first family home - mortgage income relief - has been systematically reduced in value and the first-time buyer's grant abolished. Income and wealth are, ultimately, interchangeable. Where a person owns property worth millions but declares a modest income it is perverse to argue that they are unable to pay a small tax on that wealth. Of course, where property is mortgaged it is reasonable to base the tax on the equity element.
4. Transparency: In theory rental income is taxable but in practice most rental income is undeclared since the Revenue Commissioners have no means of connecting property ownership to PPS numbers. A transparent property tax would require a comprehensive public record of property ownership. This would have the added benefit of allowing asset-based means testing, for example for higher education grants, and so counteract some of the glaring injustices in this, and similar, schemes. A property register could also ensure that tenants could obtain appropriate tax relief on rental payments.
5. Regional government: Local government is in grave need of reform. The single most effective step that could be taken to restore power and credibility to regional government would be the establishment of a regional property tax at a rate to be set by the local authority. The impotent posturing that passes for local politics would be replaced by a real and visible need to match revenue to services while keeping the support of the local electorate. Handouts from central government would be largely replaced by these locally generated and locally dispersed funds.
A city that wished to subsidise its public transport could do so. Another might choose to invest heavily in sporting or cultural facilities. In every case the local property-owning voters could be expected to demand value for money in a manner that is unthinkable under our present over-centralised system.
One key feature of the recent boom has been the rush of wealthy Irish people to buy property in Spain, France, Florida and many more exotic places. In every case they pay property tax without apparently suffering any serious hardship. Isn't it about time that those of us with property in Ireland contributed, proportionately, to our national revenues? - Yours, etc,
Dr KEVIN RYAN,
Castletroy Heights,
Limerick.
Madam, - There is a lot of talk from economic experts and from journalists about a resurgence in emigration. In this worldwide great depression, where is there to go? - Yours, etc,
HUGO BRADY BROWN,
Stratford on Slaney,
Co Wicklow.
Madam, - We are concerned about the impact of the cessation of government funding to the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism (NCCRI). We are led to believe by the Government that this body has been incorporated into the office of the Minister for Integration. But the reality is that all 12 staff of the NCCRI will lose their jobs. Their experience cannot be replaced by others and in any case the ministry is itself under-funded.
The decision sends out a very negative message about Ireland's commitment to combat racism, both nationally and internationally. Anti-racism work is even more important at a time of economic downturn and ceasing to fund the main anti-racism body in the State is a very short-sighted move.
The decision also puts in direct jeopardy EU funding for anti-racism and integration work in Ireland to the value of €4 million and possibly more (the core funding to NCCRI is only €500,000).
Nasc is equally disturbed at the high cuts in agencies such as the Equality Authority, the Combat Poverty Agency and in English-language supports for schools. We ask the government to restore core funding to the NCCRI, which would at least allow it to continue its work, albeit on a reduced budget. - Yours, etc,
GERTRUDE COTTER,
Director, Nasc, (Irish Immigrant Support Centre),
Mary Street,
Cork.