Fr Sean Healy, director of Social Justice Ireland, which has published a pre-budget submission based on a fair and sustainable future.
THERE are small mercies for which to be grateful. The fate of this country could have mirrored that of Greece. However bad things were here — and continue to be for some people — at least we avoided the panic and desperation notable in dispatches from the ancient civilisation.
Back here, the worst of the night has passed. The biggest threat to recovery is external, factors over which this country has no control. Internally, a new day is dawning, although the light has not touched many yet.
But what kind of country will it be? The appearance at the banking inquiry, during the week, of former Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, and of former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, provided a scoot back to the future, and the kind of society we had in the years prior to the great fall.
Both men defended their respective roles in shaping a country in which practically everybody benefitted from a transient building boom. Some did far better than others, but few corners of society went untouched by the illusory prosperity. Cowen was asked about the huge increases in public spending during his tenure as minister for finance, and he replied that he was intent on ensuring that everybody benefited.
“I stand over my decisions,” he said. “How long would we wait to give an old-age pensioner a few more bob… it was about spreading the benefits of prosperity to more people.” Few would disagree with the sentiment, but the values employed in spreading the fruits of prosperity receive little attention. It was trickle-down economics. Those at the top were regarded as ‘wealth creators’, even though a fair share of their wealth was created with the assistance of the State.
The thrust of economic policy was to cut taxes to disproportionately benefit those at the top. The money generated from the crazy building boom was then spread around.
As a value system, it regarded those most vulnerable in society as potential benefactors of the ‘wealth creator’, rather than citizens entitled to a decent standard of living.
Have things changed? After all that has gone down, after the disproportionate pain inflicted on those least able to bear it through the years of correction and austerity, has anything really changed?
All the indications are that the forthcoming general election will also be a scoot back to the future. All parties are going to lay out plans that have precious little to do with shaping society into the future. The thrust will be to convince a good chunk of voters that their most immediate and tangible benefit will be to vote for one party or individual.
Tax cuts will lead the way. Fine Gael is promising more tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the better-off. Fianna Fáil and Labour will also put big emphasis into showing that a vote for them will mean an immediate pay-back in people’s pockets. Sinn Fein is going one further. Last October, the party confirmed that the first item on its agenda, if it enters government, is the scrapping of the water charge and of the property tax. This is sure to hoover up some votes, and put the country back on a course of a narrow tax base that exposes the possibility of huge cutbacks when the economy hits any kind of a bump.
As a strategy, cutting taxes worked a treat for Fianna Fáil over three general elections, to such an extent that by the 2007 election all the other parties were on board.
Now that money is again becoming available, it’s the route that is to be travelled once more. It matters not, contrary to what’s put about, that this is not a high-tax economy. In fact, we have below the European average tax take, as a percentage of GDP.
Is there any chance that one of the parties might decide to mount a campaign based on values, rather than the best way to hoover votes?
During the week, glimpses into corners of Irish society said something about the values that prevail.
The Minster for Health, Leo Varadkar, admitted that the system was underfunded.
He considers that an extra €1bn is required to have a functioning health system. “Some questions remain,” he wrote in the Irish Times. “Such as whether we are willing, as a society, to pay for it, and whether we are willing to embrace the major organisational changes required.” Should that not be a priority?
On Tuesday, a report into the system of direct provision for asylum seekers was published.
Changes are recommended that might treat asylum seekers as human beings, rather than as cattle. The cost of the recommendation would be €135.4m over five years, although savings of €195m could be made on legal costs, if processing is speeded up. Even without the savings, the annual cost is €37m, hardly a king’s ransom for treating human beings with base dignity.
“We have a moral obligation, now, to move from the publication to implementation,” junior minister, Aodhan O’Riordain, said. Of course we do, but will resources that might otherwise go towards tax cuts be used in this manner?
It also emerged during the week that only 12% of rental properties are available within State rental-payment caps. A Simon Community study showed that most of those who are entitled to a payment simply cannot afford to rent a home.
“People who are homeless, or on the very edge of homelessness, currently have no hope of accessing the housing they need,” said a Simon spokeswoman. Will that issue receive due prominence in a general election that will be flagged as shaping the country into the future?
Writing in yesterday’s Irish Examiner, Fr Sean Healy, director of Social Justice Ireland, asked a few cogent questions.
“What kind of future do we want for Ireland? What level of services should we aspire to, in areas such as education and health? What level of infrastructure is required, in areas such as public transport and social housing?
“How much of Ireland’s services and infrastructure should be provided by the State?” His organisation has published a pre-budget submission based on a fair and sustainable future. Will anybody running for office pay attention? Are we doomed to go back to the future, with all that it entails?
If ever there was a time when a country should be assessing where exactly it is going, surely it is now, as the dawn lifts after a dark and dank seven years. Everybody would like to pay less tax, but the question that must be asked is at what cost. Who’s afraid to talk about these things right now?
Michael Clifford
No comments:
Post a Comment