During a recent governmental meeting presided over by Leo Varadkar, the cabinet unanimously endorsed the publication of provisional legislation, conceived by Finance Minister Michael McGrath, which aims to establish two wealth reserves to store excess corporation tax revenues for prospective needs. This strategy is wisely cautious, given the inherent variability of such income streams.
Yet, as this legislation advances through the Oireachtas, it will become increasingly apparent to the Government that an effective €6 billion has been allocated for future saving, ultimately leaving fewer resources for expenditure increases and tax reductions in the coming October’s budget. This will be of particular relevance if it proves to be the last budget day prior to the general election, providing the Government upholds its term.
Drafted predictions from the previous budget in 2023 suggest the Government will be able to provide a comfortably proportioned budget, notwithstanding the €6 billion which will be transferred into the proposed reserve funds next year. It was projected that a surplus surpassing €14 billion would be available to the general populace in both 2025 and 2026.
This provides a certain degree of budgetary flexibility – albeit less than initially suggested as the European Union (EU) borrowing measurement does not account for the funds being transferred internally within the State’s treasury.
Bridging loans: Could the reintroduction of these financial aids assist those aspiring to relocate to more modestly sized residences?
Nevertheless, transferring funds leaves the Exchequer with lower liquid assets, thereby decreasing the potential for budgetary actions.
These forecasts are set to be reassessed in an upcoming report of the Department of Finance Stability Programme. This upcoming publication is likely to highlight both the narrowed scope for budgetary measures and the persistent unpredictability surrounding corporation tax.
Significant portions of the upcoming budget’s latitude will be allocated to the two aforementioned funds. However, the anticipated surplus over the approaching years will be meaningful.
Last year’s update expected a total surplus of €65 billion between 2023 and 2026. There seems to be no apparent reason to predict that the 2024-2027 period, which will be included in the new report, will fall short of this.
Reflecting on Budget 2025, it is apparent that its financial impact, which included both enduring and ephemeral measures, amounted to €14 billion in costs for the national treasury during the previous Budget 2024. However, it’s becoming increasingly clear that similar financial bandwidth may not exist for the forthcoming October. An updated approximation of potential resources will be available within the renewed Stability Programme Update.
Yet, this brings one question to the fore regarding political etiquette: Is a repetition of temporary measures initially introduced to alleviate living conditions amidst the elevated cost of living crisis plausible? Considering the deceleration of inflation rates – notwithstanding the persisting high prices – will the government contemplate the gradual withdrawal of benefits like the energy credit?
It’s worth noting that the majority of the available financial leeway will likely be consumed by annual demands for increased funding in sectors like healthcare. There’s also considerable uncertainty pertaining to the overachievement of corporate tax in the future.
The motion of the ardfheis alludes to Fine Gael’s desire for sufficient funds to introduce tax reductions targeting middling earners. Indeed, the idea of maintaining a 30 percent tax rate for middle-income groups continues to hold sway, even after Varadkar’s departure from office. Similarly, the new Taoiseach’s goal to prevent single individuals from falling into the higher tax bracket of 40 percent for incomes less than €50,000 persists.
However, the allocation of these funds may dwindle the opportunity for politicians to channel additional corporate tax revenue in the succeeding years, specifically due to their potential volatility. Expenditure covered by an unstable revenue source could create perilous circumstances.
The establishment of the funds represents a direct response to the sustainability reservations about the corporative tax revenue influx. As a result, McGrath took the initiative to the cabinet.
According to projections from the Department of Finance, nearly half of the total corporate tax gathered locally could be incidental, thereby implying it’s susceptible to the decisions taken by influential corporative entities and not directly related to domestic economic activities.
The fact that a few companies contribute to more than 40 percent of the total corporate tax further compounds the risk due to a narrow corporate tax base.
While the proposed auto-enrolment pension scheme seems solid in theory, its practical functioning remains ambiguous.
To mitigate these risks, the Department has suggested the inception of a long-term project – the Future Ireland Fund. As per their estimates, this fund could steadily accrue up to €100 billion by 2035.
The income generated from this could provide ongoing support to the treasury in future years. This would mitigate the necessity of increasing taxes to finance long-term expenses due to an ageing populace or environmental changes. Furthermore, this monetary accumulation could limit politicians’ abilities to utilise additional corporate tax revenues, avoiding the risk of supporting daily expenses due to the unpredictability of these funds.
Debate arose during subsequent talks about the prospect of reserving funds for such an extended length of time, with a plan to contribute to the fund over a 12 year period. Hence, the establishment of the Future Ireland Fund, a long-term plan, was met with the announcement of a second initiative by the government, known as the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund.
Money is scheduled to be deposited into this fund until 2030. The intent is to make it accessible during an economic downturn, allowing the state to maintain its investments. This plan is crucial as the negative impact on Ireland due to the slashing of investment funds following the financial crisis was vast. The fund is also intended for financial aid towards future climate and nature-related investments from 2026 onward.
This act of reserving funds is considered beneficial due to the impending inevitability of additional expenses. From a generational perspective, it is an appropriate course of action. Future Ireland Fund contributions are defined by law to be 0.8% of GDP currently approximating to €4.1 billion. The standing Finance Minister has the authority to reduce this to 0.4% of GDP if economic “deterioration” is apparent and can nullify it in case of substantial economic decline.
The measurement of these set benchmarks is, naturally, subject for debate. As observed in the past with the National Pension Reserve Fund during the financial crisis; new laws can always induce changes. Most of that fund was redirected towards the bank bailout support. A new finance minister can always propose adjustments to existing rules.
Approximately €2 billion annually is slated for contribution to the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund. It’s potential uses could include bolstering State investment, particularly during a “considerable economic downturn.” Nonetheless, a portion of these funds will be allocated to support projects related to climate, water, and biodiversity.
Despite its intricate structure, the financial implications are clear – it means less money will be available for provisions in the forthcoming years, which could encompass the final budget of the current government and the initial ones of its successor. Should the surge in corporate tax persist, this might not be an issue. Yet, with spending pressures, even slight disturbances in tax could rapidly shrink the monetary leeway.
[Over one million employees face higher income tax rates]
It’s commendable to establish a financial cushion, especially considering impending financial obligations. From a generational perspective, this move is necessary to avoid placing the financial burdens on the youth, who might have to deal with increased taxes to support the pension of the aging workforce. Particularly considering their current difficulties in securing housing, imposing additional financial burdens appears unfair.
However, politics are notorious for its short-term nature, jumping from one year and one election to another. Therefore, it will be captivating to observe the impending discourse regarding the fund legislation at the committee stage and the stance of the primary opposition parties.
Likewise, the Government backbenchers’ stance will be crucial. Although reducing the budget might be sound strategy, it could stir up some political drama.