Madam, - Your Editorial of October 25th on "the implications of universality" is the first substantive attempt I have seen in the national press to address the question of universal provision of public services.
You comment on the "incoherent response" of the public in apparently wanting universal provision but not the taxes to pay for it.
This public attitude is often linked to the assertion that now is not the time to consider universal provision of services because to increase taxes would take demand out of the economy and so delay economic recovery. I believe that analysis is based on a misconception.
The government of the day will decide to provide a certain range of services. To the extent that their costs are met out of current revenues, they will be funded in one of two ways: by taxation or by charging for services (or, of course, a mixture of both). However it is done, the same amount will be taken out of the public's spending power.
The question, therefore, is whether it is preferable to pay for public services such as health, education, etc, by taxing income earners, whether or not they happen to be current users of a particular service, in proportion to their ability to pay, or by charging for each service as it is "consumed", so that the burden falls most heavily on those who, whether they can afford it or not, happen to have children in education, or to be sick, or whatever. There is no doubt which method is fairer and more rational.
These services are not like bus rides, which one may opt to use or not. They cater for more basic needs.
Presumably that is why nobody seriously suggests that the rich should pay for primary education as they use it, just because they can afford to do so, rather than by way of general taxation. Is second or third-level education, or education for the disadvantaged, or healthcare any less of a basic right?
To go some way towards recognising that, governments which embrace the service-charge option often provide a threshold below which the user will not be required to pay.
Such thresholds, however, are usually arbitrary and can be adjusted or removed. (Incidentally, does anybody seriously believe the present Government's claim in relation to the medical card debacle that only 5 per cent of the over-70s have a gross income - including pension, dividends, interest on savings, etc - of over €36,500 a year or €73,000 for a couple?)
We need to have a mature debate on this matter. Let us not cloud the issue by asserting that this is not the time to consider taxation. - Yours, etc,
DES KELLY,
Bailey View,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.
Madam, - Your Editorial of October 25th was a welcome outline of the ideological conflict that has been sidelined of late by the many human-interest stories regarding the disastrous Budget. We must remember that in most cases, the people (pensioners and others) calling for universality are the same people who were only too happy to elect Fianna Fáil-PD governments for the past 11 years. The same governments have cut taxes to the extent that universality has become an impossible financial burden for the Exchequer to maintain.
Where was the voters' long-term vision? Why wouldn't they listen to the warnings from commentators over the state of the public finances?
They were only too happy to accept government giveaways without bothering to consider the possible drawbacks for the country as a whole. As Noel Whelan said in last Saturday's edition, "We cannot have it all".
We have reached a pivotal point. We must accept that universality requires higher taxes. I fear, however, that the appetite for higher taxes is considerably smaller in this time of recession. The future of children, students and pensioners will suffer as a result. - Yours, etc,
JOHN FITZSIMONS,
Grange Manor Avenue,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
Madam, - Dr Cyril Daly (October 25th) deplores the "silver haired gurrierism" evident at the meeting in St Andrew's Church last week. But the well-respected doctor may be missing the essence of what occurred in that sacred place.
This was not a meeting of the elderly convened to indicate their unease with the Budget proposals. This was a gathering of old people to voice their incandescent outrage at the cynical, arbitrary and cruel cuts proposed in the Budget.
They rightly rejected the attempt by a Minister of State to mollify them with platitudes while the headless chickens lurked behind filing cabinets in Government Buildings.
There is a place in civilised society for righteous anger and this protest was unapologetically rowdy, somewhat paralleling that of a rabble-rousing rabbi in another sacred place 2000 years ago (Matthew 21:12). Hell hath no fury like an outraged pensioner; and may it always be so. - Yours, etc,
KEVIN HEALY,
Hampstead Avenue,
Glasnevin,
Dublin 9.
Madam, - I refer to Dr Cyril Daly's suggestion that there should be "a public act of reparation to the Divine Presence" in order to assuage the Deity's distress at the conduct of the elderly during the Age Action meeting in St Andrew's Church.
If the Deity is as touchy as Dr Daly believes, I think I would prefer to spend eternity in someone else's company. - Yours, etc,
PETER KENNY,
Hillside Drive,
Dublin 14.
Madam, - I must take issue with your political editor, Stephen Collins, when he writes that "the ruled have not got the message and are showing no signs of being in any mood to face reality" ( Inside Politics, October 25th). We most certainly do have the message but we object in the strongest possible terms to a Government which ignores its own current day-to-day spending excesses on Oireachtas jobs for the boys and girls, and on bureaucracy and administration, while hitting the low and middle-income groups and greatly reducing front-line services and people.
Similarly, Garret FitzGerald says that "the problem facing the Government today is not excess spending but a shortage of revenue".
If Dr FitzGerald, had ever run a real business he would understand that when revenue is tight you cut costs quickly in a focused and sensible manner to try to balance the books - not the savage, indiscriminate fashion shown recently. - Yours, etc,
VINCENT NORDELL,
Kincora Road,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.
Madam, - Jackie Healy-Rae has been quoted as saying there is not a single pensioner in Kerry South who has an income of more than €700 a week. Given that Mr Healy-Rae is a pensioner as well as a TD, the only conclusion must be that he is not an inhabitant of Kerry South. - Yours, etc,
KEVIN O'DEA,
Maple Close,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.
Madam, - The protest against the medical-card cuts was swift and effective because we "retired persons", not being burdened by jobs, were able to mobilise rapidly.
Unfortunately, we may have overshadowed the effects the other cuts will have on our grandchildren.
May I suggest that all the grandparents now turn out to protest equally vociferously at the damage being proposed for our grandchildren's schools? We haven't been paying our taxes for all these years so that rich people can have tax concessions for unnecessary office buildings, or that horses can be stabled luxuriously at no tax cost, while our grandchildren attend school in excessively large classes, many of them housed in prefabs. This is a disgrace to us all.
If all grandparents actively campaigned for their local schools we might make the Government see the error of its ways on this issue as well as the medical cards. - Yours, etc,
NANCY ROE,
Roscam,
Galway.