We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
LAST WEEK, the Guardian published an article by five high-profile politicians, which outlined the inadequacy of current EU policies in redressing the recession and its impact on citizens. The authors suggested a number of alternatives to the dominant focus on austerity, and rightly lamented the growing “chasm dividing prosperous core countries from a periphery destined for depression”, and the “increasing polarisation within countries”.
One of the contributors to this laudable critique of hegemonic policy discourse was our Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton. While Minister Burton’s intervention is to be welcomed, particularly her highlighting of the human costs involved in pursuing obviously flawed policies that lead to the disadvantaging of certain people, if not certain societies, it comes somewhat as a surprise.
Given her standing as a minister, who has implemented severely harsh policies in the name of austerity, and who is a member of a party that clearly endorses the rationale of austerity as a means of managing the crisis, one has reason to be sceptical. And yet, perhaps Minister Burton’s rejection of Irish Labour Party policy indicates a new way of doing business. Is this “Labour’s Way”, which had been triumphantly pronounced by the Labour leadership while in opposition, and swiftly rejected in favour of “Frankfurt’s way” once in government?
Is Minister Burton planning a shake-up of a party that has seemingly reneged on its principles, and has suffered from defections and necessitated a members-based “Campaign for Labour Policies”?
Only time will tell what truly lies behind this breaking with the official Labour Party line. In the meantime, though, if Minister Burton is serious about mitigating some of the worst effects of her government’s policies, she should perhaps support reforms and the adoption of policy measures that other countries already incorporate as a matter of course in their decision-making processes concerning public expenditure and income.
As Burton and her colleagues rightly point out, citizens feel increasingly alienated from political institutions pursuing austerity. However, this alienation is further reinforced by the very obvious injustices committed by governments in the meeting out of austerity. Austerity is being inflicted disproportionately on certain sections of the population, while others remain relatively unencumbered. Hence, the polarisation within societies mentioned by the five authors is not just an outgrowth of austerity, but also an outgrowth of how cuts to services, welfare provision and income are being administered.
We know, for instance, that child poverty in Ireland has proliferated at accelerated levels since 2008, with every fifth child now being at risk of poverty, and every tenth child living in consistent poverty. Research has also shown that the poorest members of our society, lone parents, have been subject to disproportionate cuts to income and supports in successive budgets, thereby further driving lone parents into poverty. At the same time, the Sunday Times Rich List shows that the number of Irish billionaires has doubled since the beginning of the recession, and the top 10 per cent of earners in Ireland actually increased their wealth by 8 per cent since 2009.
Importantly, all of these statistics are not just the by-product of an EU-wide imposed policy of austerity dictating “restructuring” of peripheral countries. Poverty, inequality, underfunded services, the undermining of welfare provisions, existing alongside increases in wealth for those at the top – these are also the results of decisions made by our elected representatives at national level.
Indeed, the very measures capable of shedding light on how to more fairly distribute the burden of austerity, and thereby counter inequality, are simply missing in the Irish context. Other jurisdictions, such as the UK, regularly conduct impact assessments and analyses to inform decisions concerning the public finances.
Not so in the Irish case. Budgets are devised in secret by four men (the self-styled “Economic Management Council” comprising the two Finance ministers and leader and deputy leader of the country), are completed with minimal consultation with the public and the legislature, and are devoid of analysis. By comparison, the Scottish budgetary process involves the publication of a draft budget (which can be debated before it is finalised), and an in-depth analysis of the equality impact of the budget. Research is done on the effects of budgetary measures on certain sections of Scottish society, and is presented alongside the budget on the Scottish government’s website.
Why should this be so difficult to implement in Ireland? If other jurisdictions are capable of assessing how certain policy measures will impact on different sections of society, to establish what the effects will be for children, women, older people, people with disabilities, and others, then why aren’t we capable of doing so?
The fact is, that the Irish government simply does not have enough information to ensure its policies won’t further entrench poverty and inequality in Ireland. As long as it refuses to implement a model of Equality Budgeting, along Scottish lines, it will continue to impose taxes and cuts on the most disadvantaged members of our society, thereby increasing “polarisation” and its effects for generations to come.
Ultimately, the people responsible for this are not just the much-vaunted EU officials and politicians, but the policymakers elected to represent the citizens of Ireland. I applaud Joan Burton for her principled stance on the EU’s narrow focus on austerity. However, there are vital, implementable reforms she can support at home to ensure the fall-out from austerity is mitigated.
Clara Fischer holds a Ph.D. in political theory and is a co-ordinator of the Irish Feminist Network. The network is part of broad-based coalition of civil society organisations and concerned individuals seeking more equality-focused policymaking, the Equality Budgeting Campaign.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Leftie twaddle. The top 20% of earners pay 70% of all income tax. The ‘rich’ are paying. It’s the middle and poor that aren’t contributing. 80% of us are net tax takers, in other words the income tax and vat we pay in is overwhelmed by the child benefit, mortgage interest relief, SW benefits and PS wages we take out. Our ‘Welfare State’ is a Pyramid Scheme dependent not on contributions from current workers but on the hope we’ll get more workers into the scheme in the future. ‘Equality’ is a comfy word for the State confiscation of earnings and savings by politicians who use it to buy votes from the indolent and entitled. Forced ‘equality’ whether its income or genderquotas or whatever else is de riguer with the leftie do gooding elites this week, is just totalitarianism wrapped in muesli bar. They can only have their utopia by removing an individual’s freedom to be self sufficient.
Finally someone speaking some sense..
LeDroit, Perfect.
Oh look a libertarian has come crawling out from under his rock with a bunch of nonsense stats. The middle have been hit with the USC, increased PRSI and a nonsense pension charges. Any cuts in pay always start at the lowest paid and eventually make their way up. “Leftie-twaddle”, what a joke. Libertarian BS; but it always is.
LeDroit, I would green thumb that comment 100 times if I could. Ireland is already a socialist welfare nanny state. We need to reduce the costs of doing business to encourage economic growth. I find it funny how people talk about equality but mean state interference and discrimination, gender quotas, racial quotas, university entry quotas and access schemes. Let people compete on an equal footing. That’s equality.
Load of nonsense.
The old “the top 20% pay 70%” crap.
If that is correct, so what? In order to be LIABLE to pay tax you need to have EARNINGS. So what the above statistic says is that the top 20% have an income (all things being equal) so big they are liable to contribute 70% of the tax. You cannot possible compare the tax bill of someone who is earning €20,000 a year to someone who earns €100,000. If you don’t earn it, you can’t pay it.
Interestingly however, the first €18,000 of personal income is tax free. This tax relief goes some way to showing why low income earners pay so little income tax, however, it should be noted that someone on €100,000 also gets to avail of this 100% of this tax relief.
Here is another statistic. The top 100% of income earners pay 100% of the income tax.
The best assesment ive read so far,its quite plain that even the communists have rejected the socialist left utopia as non viable,and when the private sector is not functioning it will result in the impoverishment of the state and society.
You’re correct Stephen , I think the issue is the focus that some people have in thinking high earners pay ‘nothing’ or not enough. Where do we draw the line, people that earn 100k pay over 40k in income tax. That’s fine that’s the system, people on 20k pay a much smaller figure. (the TFA has been eroded for them and everyone with USC and prsi rises). But where is the line I ask. If I was on 100k and paying my fair share how could I accept that people are calling for me to be taxed more at a higher rate. Why would my 40k contribution not be enough, should I be payink 60k tax. If I do where is my incentive to work? Moat people on incomes of that level don’t get it for doing a 9 to 5 job and have a very poor work life balance, and that’s fine that was their choice to do so. But Don’t they have the right at the very least not to be shunned and told that they need to pay more fore the betterment of society?
There should be noone living in Ireland allowed evade paying their fair share of income tax, mostly revenue ensure that. Look how effective they are.. and on the other end of the scale social welfare benefits for the most part should be for the needy and used to support people when they’re down, the concept of ‘lifetime’ benefits of any sort is insane. We should offer the same opportunities to every child from birth as much as we can, and going down the ‘benefit’ route for life should not be one of those opportunities…
What a load of crap. There wouldn’t be high earners if low earners didn’t exist. And how do you think high earners make their money? From low earners. If you make a lot of money in this country it’s generally because society gives you that opportunity so it’s only fair that you pay it back.
“society gives you that opportunity”
Most higher earners go out and look for opportunities rather than waiting for “society” to give them to them.
Sean Claffey you need to use better buzzwords.. Don’t call them higher-earners call them capitalists or bigwigs or exploiters.. Don’t call them lower-paid, call them the proletariat.. Don’t call it wages call it accumulated wealth.. Don’t call it ‘paying it back’ call it redistribution of wealth.. That’s the lefty lexicon covered right?
You compressed a lot of tripe into that short post Sean. So what is it you believe that higher earners should hand more money back to the government than they take for themselves? For what the ‘privilege’ (as you might phrase it) of earning that money?
Well said Stephen!
I really wish people would stop abusing the word “equality” in this context.
Micromanaging the economy so you can realign society and human behaviours in line with your own personal ideology because you, presumably, know what’s best for everyone is social engineering. When this happens the state ends up with enormous power as everyone is dependent on it.
Also, when columnists such as the above speak about “the rich” as some sort of contemptible other, remember that they are really talking about taxing the living hell out of anyone making individually over 40k as there’s not enough of the other sort in the country.
I’m really sick of all this lefty/feminist waffle. It amounts to one thing: “give us all your money so we can remodel society as we see fit”. Thanks but no thanks.
There are too many people who believe that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ ‘I’m unemployed, the government must provide for me or create me a job.’
They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is only such thing as society where there are individual men and women, and there are families and there are people.
No government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations.
There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.
Whomsoever robs Peter to pay Paul can always rely upon Paul’s support.
Did anyone else notice that this right-on campaign is actually being funded by the taxpayer via the equality authority?
Great to see the economy is doing so well we can afford to pay one arm of the government to lobby another on how it does business.
Actually what Le Droit is saying is correct and your argument doesn’t hold any water. Effective tax rates for those on higher incomes in Ireland are much higher than international norms and effective rates for low earners much lower than international norms. The problem with this society is exactly your argument – let somebody else pay.
5% of the population pay 45% of all the income tax take in this country. That is for every 20 people, 1 individual pays the same amount of tax than the other 19 combined. The marginal income tax rate in Ireland is 52% for every euro earned above 32k EUR…this is far higher and progressive than any of our counterparts (a single individual earning 100k will give 40% of that income to the state). The real issue in Ireland is that we have very high tax free allowances (16k ex USC for most workers) which means the tax take from the other 19 people per my example above is proportionally much lower than international standards.
The burden paid by low income tax earners in Ireland is lower than the OECD average. Per the OECD:
“The effective tax rate is less than 11% for all incomes up to €21,700 (approximately 67% of
the average wage) and 18% at the average wage. The OECD rate for workers at 67% of the
average wage was 21% in 2011 and 25% for individuals earning the average wage”
That is the effective tax rate for an individual earning the average wage in Ireland is 7% less than the OECD average. This has all been studied and documented by the OECD:
http://budget.gov.ie/budgets/2013/Documents/Annex%20F%20-%20Progressivity.pdf
Well I believe that the larger the gap between rich and poor the worse it is for society in general. There is a line of poverty which nobody should fall beneath and there is a certain point where you don’t need any more wealth for any reason but pure greed.
“You can have equality and allow everyone to be poor, or you can have prosperity and inequality”
The choice is yours.
Just because you put it in quotes doesn’t make it true
Removing temptations to remain dependent on welfare while helping severe poverty is the next step.
Right Labour, read this, understand it, then get your heads out of Enda’s arse and behave like the Labour party is supposed to.
Speak it like it is! Too many people looking for “benefits”
Is it any wonder rich people are getting richer? Company directors everywhere are benefitting because of cheap labour costs. When Mary Harney announced back in 2003 that 60,000 foreign workers per year were going to be needed for 10 years if the boom times were to continue, it was obvious who was pulling the strings. Mary and her wealthy friends in IBEC didn’t think through the consequences though. Sure they got their cheap labour, but it forced a generation of Irish people on to benefits. Then when you consider that a majority of these foreign workers scrimp to send as much money as they can back to their homelands, this obviously makes our economy even weaker! So for them to complain about the cost of welfare reeks of nothing more than sheer hypocrisy!
Ah marvellous. Another lefty opinion piece whose main thrust is “give me other people’s money so I can divvy it out as I see fit”.
Aside from the obvious flaws with this, it’s grounded on the false assumption that economic activity will remain the same when you tax it out of existence to pay for your grandiose social planning. It won’t – it will diminish, go underground or move.
At least she didn’t mention Sweden or the Nordic model – thank heavens for that. Check Greece or Ireland in the 80s if you want to see what the end result of government spending binges is.
Yet another piece on the Journal that’s looking for other people’s money and borrowing en masse as the solution to everything. Failed socialist claptrap.
MMMMm lets take the Marys for example they are high earners Mary McAlese and Mary Robinson and neither contributed anything both have new jobs and massive wages and both are taking wages from the state or John Bruton some one else with a job and a pension and talks rubbish as well. The biggest takers from the alleged benefits are the scammers. Don’t even start me on the poison dwarf who flew in late and night and signed something he didn’t even read on the state jet to destroy the next generation!!
@LeDroit
“The ‘rich’ are paying. It’s the middle and poor that are not contributing”.
Maybe you could explain how poor people can pay more tax, perhaps you could provide them with some highly paid jobs?
Nevertheless, it’s the comments after yours in support of you that is worrying. Either those posters are rich or very, very stupid.
Sure Stephen. It’s called a Flat Tax. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
Equal percentage of everyone’s income so we all finally contribute IN to the system. More you earn the more you pay so its progressive instead of punitive as now. The Welfare Pyramid Scheme won’t go on without everyone chipping in.
Stephan Downey, I am neither rich or stupid.. But I would gladly hear how poor and intelligent you are?
@LeDroit
I would be all for a flat ‘equal’ tax system. However, the problem is those that earn the least would be cast further into poverty and thus more reliant on welfare, defeating the purpose. As it is, an element of some €18,000 of personal income is tax-free. The purpose being, to keep low paid workers on low rates of pay but not to burden them with punitive tax. The problem however is that, like child benefit, those that earn high incomes avail 100% of this tax relief also.
Your comparison of the tax contribution of high earners against low earners is flawed insofar as low earners don’t earn enough to make the comparison. What you should do is compare the tax contribution of someone on €25,000 with the first €25,000 of a high earners income. You might not like it, but you will find they both pay the same tax.
Tell that to Joe Costello his wife and sister in law the labour appointed judge and the sister in law in Senad that’s what I call benefit fraud!! Or Miriam Ahern sister in law and practice partner of Dermot Ahern she has every job going in Dundalk returning officer county registrar county sheriff blah blah don’t know how her broom stick goes so fast that’s benefit fraud!! And F G Endas buddy county manager Ffs extreme benefit fraud none of em do more than a bit of robbing hold ups ruin a few businesses a few lives great work!!!
First thing I did was read the author’s profile: “Clara Fischer holds a Ph.D. in political theory and is a co-ordinator of the Irish Feminist Network.”. That was enough. I moved on to something else.
I gave her a chance, pillar of tolerance that I am, but she lost me at ‘hegemonic’.
Oh, and it’s “meting out”. You’d think a Statist would get that one right :)
We should never have joined the EU or given up our Punt.
A German Court decision due in the next week or so will decide on the future of the euro and when the Germans find out that is their pension money that has been squandered on ‘bailouts’ then we shall see some changes.
We have Tax Loop Hole to use. Like paying into your private company pension plan that lowers the well off income. So they pay not more then a low paid worker. Never mind taking about Corporation Tax avoidance schemes. Ireland will never have a equality Budget. Why? Well you live under a Capitalist system. It is what it is.
While Minister Joan Burton’s criticism of EU-policy is laudable, much can be done domestically to stem inequality and poverty in Ireland, ”
Nothing will be done to create equality in a patriarchal society like Ireland.
This game is called auto genocide.Eliminate the weak, disabled, women first of course as they breed more children.
Equality would mean all citizens would receive fairly from our collective pot- as all needs are given freely by Mother Earth to begin with.
Mothering receives no income- unless the child is looked after by someone else. How is that equal?
Equality could mean “work” of 20 hours per week for everyone if seen in a co operative light as opposed to rich v poor.
Rich V Poor is one of the stages of autogenocide and is working very well here as one can see from comments.
http://www.whale.to/b/crow.html
Dehumanization. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. One group denies the humanity of the other group. People to be destroyed are justified/equated as lesser forms of life. They are scapegoated as factors for lower quality of village life caused by political and economic corruption.”
That’s a seriously tinfoil hat way of saying “I don’t want to do any work”.
You really have a bleak view if the world don’t you.
What do you do once you have “worked” your 20 hours per week. And who funds all of this?
“Equality would mean all citizens would receive fairly from our collective pot- as all needs are given freely by Mother Earth to begin with.”
Well to begin we’d have to stop calling it Mother Earth(that’s your patriarchal privilege showing) and have various gender neutral terms instead. We’ll just have to decide which is the most appropriate in each context. I was considering Stay-at-Home-Dad Earth, Working Mother Earth, Lone-Parent Earth, LGBTQ Earth.
the starving of Africa will be thrilled to learn that all needs are given equally by Mother Nature.
I can’t believe someone used the term ‘Mother Earth’ in 2013.
Once the word should appears in the title, beware of rambling speculation. Sunday morning time waster
She has a Ph.D. in political theory, applauds Joan Burton for a “political stance” and reckons the government doesn’t have enough information on it’s citizens.
Joan Burton is part of the problem, she’s a woman in politics who is implementing policies that affect both men and women, the continued lunacy of Job-Bridge is probably the most dis-empowering act against any participants ( for both men and women) in the labour market since the day of the lockout.
Should have gone for a Ph.D is creative writing instead
While job bridge has it’s problems it’s not a bad idea and I know a number of people who have benefited from it. You can gain valuable experience that would otherwise not have been possible.
The like of Tesco abusing the scheme for shelf stackers etc. should be stopped and companies should be fined for abusing the system.
A good idea is not to interfere in the Labour Market, the only benefits I see are to the employers as there is no guarantee of continuity of employment from the scheme, the only benefit is gaining experience in a role that if employers had to source from the open market would mean they would have to offer market rates (whatever they might be) .
If Job Bridge was essentially an apprenticeship scheme, as in the qualifications and experience of the candidates didn’t matter, they learned on the job or gained experience as any apprenticeship of internship is about then you could argue it is a valid beneficial scheme.
If the likes of Tescos can abuse the system, so can every other employer, and they do, they offer Job bridge positions where you need 5 years previous experience and qualifications, that’s abuse of the system and abuse of the labour market.
If they require qualified and experience staff (temporary or permanent) they should pay the market rates, not expect people to turn up to work for €50 a week more.
The scheme should be closed or changed so that they must offer these roles to people regardless of experience or qualifications. If they require those skills they should pay the market rate like any other employer has to do to attract qualified and experienced staff.
Ireland cannot introduce any budget without approval from the EUSSR. We have to face that fact and do something about it before any possible improvement in the economic and social system here can take place.
have your say