The argument that the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and that inequality is on the increase, is part of the staple diet of political debate, not just in Ireland, but in the US, Britain, France and Germany.
Economists, social scientists and poverty agencies provide the analysis. In countries, where left-leaning parties are in opposition, the government is blamed as right-wing, neo-liberal and uncaring. Where Labour or Social Democrats govern, it is turned against them by internal left-wing critics, or by smaller left-wing parties outside, as is the case in Britain and Germany at present.
The claim at its most straightforward is an attempt to capture public attention for problems of persistent poverty that need to be tackled in the midst of growing affluence.
When Fianna Fáil invited Father Seán Healy of the Conference of the Religious in Ireland (CORI) to address it in Inchydoney earlier this month, it signalled its further acknowledgment that, despite sustained high growth, there are still serious problems of poverty in our society. It was also an indication of the Government's determination to prioritise the problem for the remainder of its term. It did not signify indiscriminate acceptance of his preferred solutions.
The most reasonable objective is to raise the lowest social welfare payments to 30 per cent of the average industrial wage and thereafter to link increases to its growth, to avoid widening relative inequality.
The negative income tax credit, where the tax due is not sufficient to absorb the credit, has attractions, but is expensive (over € 500 million). The more elaborate version, a basic income for all, is too expensive at € 1.3 billion and unnecessary. Most people are capable of earning a basic income and much more, and do not need a notional welfare payment from the State. Universal benefits have merits, but the cost can be prohibitive. Near full employment means that any alleged disincentive to work is no longer a major problem that needs to be dealt with in this manner.
I have least sympathy with the argument that spending or taxation should conform to some European norm in terms of GDP, regardless of demographics, or the level of unemployment. High levels of economic growth in the past 10 years mean that, regardless of GDP, real social spending has increased greatly in real terms, compared to inflation. Any given percentage is no guide to effectiveness or policy.
Few people would challenge the part of the argument that the rich are getting richer. In the case of the super-rich, wealth is reaching astronomical levels. Practically none are tax resident, but generally they give substantial employment, and keep valuable assets in this country.
Fifty years ago, millionaires were a wonder and a rarity. Today, euro-millionaires probably comprise tens of thousands of home-owners, business people and farmers. People tend to be critical of high earners, and what they do to justify or dispose of their income. Much of the envy and resentment comes from people only a few rungs below, rather than those near the bottom of the ladder. Those who try to make a virtue of inequality or a predetermined destiny for others tend to evoke strong public reaction.
A country such as the US takes pride in the increasing number of high-earners. In Ireland in 1880 some 20 per cent of the population owned all property and the remaining 80 per cent none - today the proportions are reversed. The men and women of no property have mostly become owners of some property, a social revolution.
It is a moot point to what degree egalitarianism is feasible and optimises the welfare of all. Socialist command economies, which abolished private property, failed. The obligation on the state to bring up the rearguard, and maintain social cohesion and inclusion, should not cut across the need to drive forward and encourage those at the cutting edge of enterprise, cultural activity and research. In a world, where there is mobility between countries competing to attract or retain talent and ability, account must be taken of conditions elsewhere in setting national policy.
Economic policy in Ireland has been hugely successful since 1987. The area of debate is how best to use the fruits of growth, including value for money.
There is a tendency to set up ideological straw men. The Government is portrayed as neo-liberal, when it is nothing of the kind. Social partnership and a continuing attachment to the virtues of public enterprise and service in many areas are not evidence of neo-liberalism.
Greater social democracy is presented as the alternative, as a milder and more benign version of socialism. But social democracy is on the retreat across Europe, while we are urged to go deeper into it. Under Hartz IV, Germans are being faced with substantial cutbacks for the unemployed in a social welfare system admittedly much more generous than ours. The creation of mini-jobs is seen as an advance in a country with 10 per cent unemployment.
European Social Democrats are demanding harmonisation of corporation tax. Yet our lower rate has helped us to close the income gap with the EU average. In France the 35-hour week brought in by the Socialists is a millstone, while that party is now sharply divided over the European constitutional treaty. In Britain Alan Millburn's reappointment in Whitehall is being treated as a declaration of war by the redistributionist left-wing of the Labour Party.
Ideological labels these days have little predictive value. The Labour Party here seems to think it is enough for the moment to emphasise its values, as if those values were not common to most parties. What actually matters is how they are practised and operated.
Social democracy values have not guaranteed adequate social welfare increases in the past, or that State firms in difficulty would not be abandoned. It is good, however, that social progress and the creation of a fairer society will be one of the principal political battlegrounds of the next three years. Whatever its outcome, it is the poorer people who should benefit.