Dear Editor, – Following another fiscal announcement, yet again we are met with a spontaneous distribution of funds from our vote-seeking Administration, with no outlined plan for our nation’s state in a decade or two. Absent such vision, there’s no possibility for tax reformation or equity across all social strata.
One truth we’re aware of yet tend to dismiss, is that the upper decile of income earners contribute 66% of the income taxes. We’ve implemented one of the most progressive income tax structures in Europe, that combines high inheritance, capital gains and savings taxes. In contrast, those less fortunate benefit from the second most generous welfare system in Europe and have ample representation from leftist political factions. The populist parties – Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, well represent the middle-class majority. It appears to have become politically and socially objectionable to advocate for capitalism, wealth creation and accumulation. Often overlooked is the notion that our financial prosperity and capacity to be spendthrift originates from vigorous capitalism facilitated by modest corporation taxes. But who safeguards the affluent top fifth of our society? Certainly, none of the current political parties, all economically aligning left of centre. It seems there’s an acute need to recalibrate our political spectrum to mirror societal reality. – Best regards,
EA BURKE, Dublin 4
Elegant contemporary residence in a gated close, proximal to Malahide Castle up for €1.95m
Are you prepared? Here’s the professionals’ guide to fruit buying – ensuring ripe and delectable produce every time
2025 Fiscal Q&A: Primarily focused on changes to inheritance tax and welfare for readers
The Irish community in Birmingham was shattered by the pub bombings, recovery is a slow process.
Dear Editor, – Following the maturation of my husband’s life policy, we used the funds to invest in bank shares with the goal of supplementing our pension. Regrettably, the shares went belly-up. Now they’ve resurfaced and will be sold by the Government for €3 billion. This is a curious occurrence, but not to worry. I’ve received a €12 boost to my pension – Best regards,
ELIZABETH MOLONEY, Dublin 4.
Dear Editor, – I believe it’s crucial to communicate to your youthful readership that future budgets might not always unfold in this manner. Unfortunately – Best regards.
DAVID CURRAN, from Knocknacarra in Galway, expresses his frustrations on how the Government ignored the Fiscal Advisory Council’s warning and pushed their own guidelines to earn the public’s favour before the imminent elections. All this reminded him of watching the Late Late Show, with the customary giveaways to the audience members.
BARRY ROONEY, from Ashford in Wicklow, raises concerns about the continued disregard towards landlords, amidst dipping supply of rental properties. Whether they own a single property or multiple, they offer a crucial service yet are considered outsiders in mainstream politics. He laments the exodus of landlords from the industry, caused by impediments like the rent-pressure zones, burdensome taxation, and crippling legislation. Jokingly, he foresees himself being displayed in the Natural History Museum as an artefact as future generations wonder what the term landlord even means.
NEVILLE SCARGILL, from Bray in Wicklow, criticizes the Government’s failure to overhaul the antiquated inheritance tax laws in the latest budget or incorporate any profound structural changes to negate the tax’s inherent inequity and disparities which unjustly decrease inheritances’ worth. He likens the retention of inheritance tax to state-authorized grave looting, contrasting it with the tax exemption bestowed upon significant lottery and gambling wins. Despite these complaints, he begrudgingly welcomes the announced rise in exemption thresholds in a limited capacity, a change he attributes to their advocacy efforts. He laments that these new thresholds continue to unfairly impact grandchildren, nephews, nieces, siblings (Class B) and non-relatives (Class C) who are recipients of an inheritance, asserting that they are still unfairly low.
There’s simply no convincing case to be made for the government appropriating 33 per cent of inheritances obtained by a grandchild, niece, nephew, sibling, or cohabitee exceeding the revised exemption thresholds of €40,000 or over €20,000 respectively. These augmented thresholds remain significantly below those applied pre-2008 (Class B €54,254 and Class C €27,127). The government remains undeterred in its pursuit to seize more estate from the deceased who are single or bereaved without living offspring than their counterparts with children.
As far as children inheriting from a deceased parent are concerned, the rise in exemption from €335,000 to €400,000, though welcomed, remains inferior by €142,544 to the threshold set in and before 2008 (€542,544). To match its 2008 monetary worth given the current inflation rate and real estate prices, we propose the least increase should be to €666,000.
In 2008 and earlier, the rate of inheritance tax was 20 per cent. However, due to fiscal collapse, the rate was raised to 33 per cent. Considering the sound economic recovery and a significant budget surplus, we deemed it fit to have at least restored the rate to the 20 per cent figure.
The Government has unjustly decided to keep the inheritance tax rate and exemption thresholds more or less on an emergency financial basis, thus endorsing a tax many perceive to be driven by resentment, jealousy and socialist dogma. The Government has chosen to overlook the fact that there is no inheritance tax in nine European countries and several others worldwide. Our fight to abolish this tax or at least effect a radical reform will persist.
ALAN SHATTER,
Chairman,
Inheritance Tax Reform Campaign,
Dublin 16.
Dear friend, – It’s high time we consider shutting down the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and make savings on independent expenditure.
There’s absolutely no point in spending on its maintenance if we aren’t inclined to adopt its recommendations.
Is mise,
ART Ó LAOGHAIRE,
Bray,
County Wicklow.
Sir, – Reflecting on Budget 2025 brings to mind an old-time tradition where the groom or best man, in the aftermath of a wedding, hurled a clutch of coins into the air, resulting in a hustle to accumulate as many coins as possible. Known as a “grush”, this reminds me of the recent budget.– Yours, etc,
TONY CORCORAN,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – Numerous implementations have been introduced in Budget 2025 with an intent to aid disabled individuals. These range from one-time grants designed to mitigate the burden of rising living costs, to a gain of €12 in disability allowance, not to mention fuel subsidies and utility cost support for those who shoulder the burden of bill payments. These strategies will absolutely alleviate some issues, specifically those wrestling with increased living expenses, but they inadequately address the wider and more complex challenges faced by disabled inhabitants of Ireland.
An essential critique stems from the Government’s continued failure to put into action the suggestions from the Indecon cost of disability report, commissioned by them in 2021. The research-driven document approximated that yearly disability costs in Ireland vary between €9,482 to €11,734. Regardless of the explicit conclusions of the examination, the government yet failed to incorporate a non-asset-based disability payment in this budget, leaving disabled individuals to cope with the substantial additional monetary strain. The lack of this vital support hinder the progress toward equality, as the elevated living costs disabled people endure aren’t fully accommodated for in this budget.
Additionally, the echelon of more than €300 million dedicated to disability services in the budget comes without any clear operational plan. The budget continues to prioritise residential institutions, suggestive of an ongoing bias towards institutionalisation rather than endorsing independent community living for disabled individuals. The initial reference made by the minister concerning these funds was “residential places”, reemphasising the outdated perspective of disabled people being reliant on institutions and contra to the idea of them prospering within our communities with appropriate aid.
The state’s concerning policy of fiscal substitution is central to ongoing debates. This strategy allows the government to justify not disbursing a disability allowance directly to individuals by citing funds dedicated to public disability services. This presupposes that such public spending compensates for the financial obligations those living with disabilities must bear. However, this measure tends to perpetuate deprivation and isolation for disabled individuals unwittingly.
In believing that public services are adequate, the government negates the necessity of providing specific aid for the additional costs engendered by physical disabilities and structural obstructions. Illustrating a chronic issue, this fiscal strategy exacerbates dependability, seclusion, and impoverishment, whilst overlooking the structural barriers contributing to this dependency-based approach. Thus, it bolsters systematic ableism, seeing disabled individuals merely as beneficiaries of services, rather than enabling them to make sovereign decisions.
This strategy becomes particularly concerning when considering Ireland’s commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). This treaty underlines the right to independent living with essential support, which is overlooked by our budget’s emphasis on residential services, thereby establishing continual institutionalisation over real support for individuals living with disabilities.
Moreover, this budget overlooks the systemic problems of homelessness and the ongoing institutionalisation of disabled individuals confined to nursing homes and family homes. These pressing matters necessitate tailored interventions, yet they remain mostly unattended in the government’s financial agenda.
Despite the government’s public discourse suggesting substantial budgetary support for disabled individuals, these efforts considerably miss the much-needed radical shift towards a fair society. Instant, single-use grants could provide temporary respite for those grappling with the high cost of living. Still, they do not address the ingrained inequalities in the existing system.
While some might applaud the extra disbursements, the budget disappointingly overlooks the necessary structural amendments to aid disabled individuals in achieving authentic equality. It’s high time to prioritise the rights, self-worth, and autonomy of disabled individuals over enduring a narrative of dependency. – Yours, sincerely,
ANN MARIE FLANAGAN,
Co-founder,
Equality Not Care,
Ennistymon,
Co Clare.