Sir, – Another budget and another random giveaway from a populist Government with an eye on the next election. There is no vision of where we might like to see the country in 10 to 20 years. Without that there can be no structural reform to taxes and fairness to all segments of society.
We know, but largely ignore, the fact that the top 10 per cent of earners pay 66 per cent of income taxes. We have one of the most progressive income tax regimes in Europe and also high taxes on inheritance, capital gains and savings. The least well-off are relatively well supported through the second highest social welfare in Europe and are well represented by left-wing parties. The middle 60 per cent are well represented by the populist parties – Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. It seems to be politically and socially unacceptable to support capitalism, wealth creation and wealth retention. Maybe we might reflect on the fact that the ongoing success and ability to be profligate with our finances comes from aggressive capitalism in the form of low corporation taxes. Who is looking after the interests of the more wealthy 20 per cent of the population? Certainly none of the existing parties, who are all left of centre economically. It really is time for a rebalancing of the political landscape to reflect the realities of our society. – Yours, etc,
EA BURKE,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – My husband had a life policy which matured. This was then invested in bank shares with a view to topping up our old-age pension. The bank shares went up in smoke, but now they have reappeared and will be sold by the Government for €3 billion. Strange, but not to worry. I got a €12 top-up to my old-age pension. – Yours, etc,
ELIZABETH MOLONEY,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – It’s important to point out to all your younger readers that this isn’t how budgets always will be. Sadly. – Yours, etc,
DAVID CURRAN,
Knocknacarra,
Galway.
A chara, – It felt like I was watching the Late Late Show, with one for everybody in the audience. Even though the Fiscal Advisory Council warned the Government not to break its own guidelines, the Coalition wanted to give the masses a fuzzy feeling before the next election, which could be sooner rather than later. – Yours, etc,
BARRY ROONEY,
Ashford,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – At a time when the supply of rented accommodation continues to fall, it is quite astounding that, yet again, the budget provided no solace for landlords.
Whether they own one property or five, landlords are effectively small business owners providing a valuable service, yet continue to be viewed as commercial outcasts in the world of populist politics.
The exit of property owners from the industry continues, weary as we are from rent-pressure zones, strangling taxation and oppressive legislation.
We are a dying breed and, assuming the availability of a suitable taxidermy service, I would like at some stage to offer myself to the Natural History Museum where the shell of being can be viewed in a glass case as children gaze in wonder asking the question, “Mummy, what’s a landlord?” – Yours, etc,
NEVILLE SCARGILL,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – It is a major failure of Government that the budget has not abolished our outdated inheritance tax laws nor does it contain any fundamental structural reforms to address the tax’s systemic unfairness, anomalies and discriminations which wrongly diminish the value of inheritances of those bereaved. In a State that exempts substantial lottery and gambling wins from taxation, it seems that winning money on a flutter is perceived by Government as more beneficial to society and the State than the simple generosity of those deceased and their concern for the welfare and financial security of others.
While inheritance tax is to remain and State-sponsored grave robbery to continue, we give a limited welcome to the announced increases in the exemption thresholds that would not have occurred without our campaign. The new exemption thresholds still discriminate against grandchildren nephews, nieces, siblings (Class B) and non-relations (Class C) who benefit from an inheritance and which are far too low.
There is no social policy justification for the State stealing 33 per cent of inheritances received by a grandchild, nephew, niece or sibling over the new exemption thresholds of €40,000 or received by a friend or cohabitee over €20,000. These increases result in the new limits remaining substantially below those that applied in 2008 and earlier (Class B €54,254 and Class C €27,127). It also remains that the State will continue to steal more of the assets of a single or widowed deceased without surviving children than those of a deceased with such children.
As for children who inherit from a deceased parent, the welcome exemption threshold increase from €335,000 to €400,000 remains €142,544 below the exemption threshold of 2008 (€542,544) and years earlier. To restore its 2008 value, having regard to inflation and today’s residential property prices, it should, as a minimum, have been increased to €666,000.
In 2008 and earlier the inheritance tax rate was 20 per cent. Due to the State’s financial collapse it increased to 33 per cent. In light of the State’s financial recovery and a very substantial and unprecedented budget surplus, the budget should have, as a minimum, reduced the rate back to 20 per cent.
The Government has wrongly determined that the inheritance tax rate and exemption thresholds should largely remain on a fiscal emergency footing and endorsed the continuation of what many rightly regard as a resentment or jealousy tax and socialist dogma. It has wrongly chosen to disregard that inheritance tax does not exist today in nine European states and in many others across the world. Our campaign for its abolition and, as a minimum, its fundamental reform will continue. – Yours, etc,
ALAN SHATTER,
Chair,
Inheritance Tax Reform Campaign,
Dublin 16.
A chara, – It really is time to close the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, and save whatever money it is being paid.
There is no point in wasting money retaining it if we don’t want its advice. – Is mise,
ART Ó LAOGHAIRE,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – The Budget 2025 reminds me of a practice many decades ago when, after a wedding, the groom or the best man threw a handful of coins in the air, thus creating a scramble to pick up as many coins as possible. It was called a “grush”. – Yours, etc,
TONY CORCORAN,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – Budget 2025 introduced several measures aimed at supporting disabled people. These include once-off grants to help with additional costs associated with the rising costs of living, a €12 increase in the disability allowance, as well as other provisions such as fuel allowances and energy bills for those who are the named bill payer. While these measures will certainly offer some relief, particularly for those facing the escalating cost of living, they fall short of addressing the broader and more systemic issues disabled people face in Ireland.
One key criticism is that the Government has once again failed to implement the recommendations of the Indecon cost of disability report commissioned by the Government in 2021. Based on detailed empirical research, the report estimated that the overall average annual costs of disability in Ireland range from €9,482 to €11,734 a year. Despite the report’s clear findings, this budget, again, did not introduce a non-means-tested cost of disability payment, leaving disabled people to bear these significant extra financial burdens. The failure to embed this critical support undermines efforts toward real equality, as disabled people continue to face disproportionately high living costs that are simply not accounted for in this budget.
Moreover, while the budget announced over €300 million for disability services, there is no clear strategic plan behind this allocation. The emphasis continues to be placed on residential services, which suggests a continued focus on institutionalisation rather than supporting disabled people to live independently in the community and on an equal basis with others. The first mention by the Minister in relation to this funding was “residential places”, once again reinforcing the outdated view that disabled people are dependent on institutions rather than capable of thriving within our communities with the appropriate supports.
A critical policy issue at play is fiscal substitution, where the State uses public expenditure on disability services as a justification for not paying direct a cost-of-disability allowance to individuals. This approach assumes that the money spent on public services offsets the financial costs that disabled people incur. However, this policy has the effect of keeping disabled people in deprivation and isolation. By deciding that public services are sufficient, the Government denies disabled individuals the direct support needed for the actual additional costs faced due to impairment and systemic barriers. This fiscal policy perpetuates dependency, isolation, and poverty while ignoring the systemic barriers that contribute to the dependency approach for disabled people. It reinforces systemic ableism by treating disabled people as passive recipients of services, rather than empowering people with the means to make autonomous decisions.
This approach is especially troubling when considered in light of Ireland’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The convention emphasises the right to independent living with the supports needed. The budget’s focus on residential services overlooks these rights, continuing to institutionalise rather than support disabled people.
Additionally, this budget does not tackle the systemic issues of homelessness and the continued institutionalisation of disabled people trapped in nursing homes and family homes. These are critical issues that require targeted interventions, and yet they remain largely unaddressed in the Government’s financial planning.
While the Government’s public messaging might create the impression that disabled people are receiving substantial support through this budget, these measures fall far short of the transformative change needed to create an equal society. Short-term, one-off grants may offer some immediate relief for people struggling with the cost of living, but they do not address the deeper inequalities embedded in the current system.
Although some may welcome the additional payments, the budget fails to address the structural changes required to support disabled people in achieving true equality. It is time to prioritise rights, dignity, and autonomy for disabled people, rather than perpetuating a narrative of dependency. – Yours, etc,
ANN MARIE FLANAGAN,
Co-founder,
Equality Not Care,
Ennistymon,
Co Clare.