Sir, – Words like "progressive" or "regressive" are meaningless unless they are followed by "with respect to". The fact that the "appropriate base for indirect taxes is total expenditure" is undeniable but irrelevant to the debate (David Madden, September 30th). You can't say that Irish income tax is progressive with respect to income and that indirect tax overall is (perhaps) a bit regressive with respect to consumption and then expect somehow to nail these things together to get an intelligible statement about the overall progressivity of the system. Progressive with respect to what?
If you want to say something about the overall progressivity of a tax system, you have to have a “with respect to”, and probably for most people who look at the vertical equity of a tax system that means income. – Yours, etc,
JOHN BRISTOW,
Killiney,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Fintan O'Toole's analysis of the overall regressive nature of our tax system is characteristically blunt ("The myth of Ireland's progressive tax system", Opinion & Analysis, September 29th). But his broad principal that many indirect taxes are regressive is self-evident.
Does this not raise questions regarding the contribution towards greater equality that might be achieved by replacing water charges and property taxes with a charge on total tax take?
If the contribution to total tax take paid by the less well-off is regressive then, surely, any reversion to further calls on such taxes would have a negative impact on those who pay them.
Property taxes, being taxes on wealth, are inherently progressive, and water charges can be made progressive through incrementally higher charges for high usage.
This progressiveness can be enhanced through allowances, exemptions, means-testing, household benefits packages for pensioners, etc.
Would this – keeping household and water charges separate and making them progressive – not be a more constructive and positive approach to developing policies aimed at achieving social equality? – Yours, etc,
JOHN CASEY,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.