ICTU calls proposed VAT cut 'economic vandalism'
Following the publication of the Summer Economic Statement yesterday, Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe said that the cost of the VAT cut would be almost €1bn, using the majority of the €1.5bn identified for tax measures.
"The proposal to cut the VAT rate at a time of huge economic uncertainty flies in the face of all available evidence, and would amount to nothing less than economic vandalism," said General Secretary of ICTU Owen Reidy.
"Hospitality is a sector rife with low paid employment and poor conditions, and all evidence suggests that the reduction in VAT will not be passed on to consumers or staff, but pocketed by employers," Mr Reidy said.
SIPTU said private sector workers have been short-changed by a Government which has broken commitments on pensions, increased sick days and measures to offset the cost of living crisis while announcing tax breaks for business.
"This morning on national radio, the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, stated that there was a prior commitment to the hospitality sector on a VAT reduction," said SIPTU Deputy General Secretary Greg Ennis.
"However, what about the Government's prior commitments to workers with regard to increasing statutory occupational sick pay from five to seven days in 2025, progression towards a living wage in 2026, which has now been shelved until at least 2029, and the abolition of sub-minimum wages for young workers," Mr Ennis said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
21 minutes ago
- Irish Times
‘I'm angry that my abuse as a child does not count' – State must pay for school sexual abuse
Minister for Education Helen McEntee stated recently that those responsible for historical sexual abuse in schools must pay. She is right. But let us be very clear. This includes the State. It cannot be erased or ignored that 11 years ago, following the case taken by Louise O'Keeffe , the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) established that the Irish State had – and continues to have – a positive duty to take steps to protect children from abuse and to provide an effective remedy for those who have suffered sexual abuse in Irish schools. The ECHR ruled the State had been aware of the level of sexual crime by adults against minors in Ireland. The court made it clear the State bears a stand-alone responsibility to every child abused in State schools for its failure, until the early 1990s, to implement national child protection measures. It cannot outsource that responsibility to religious organisations, nor hide behind procedural defences. The Government is well aware of this judgment and is legally bound to comply with it. As recently as January 2024, a plan was submitted to the ECHR, updating it on State progress 'to abide by the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights ...' which includes the State paying redress of €84,000 to survivors of sexual abuse in schools. READ MORE Strangely, and extremely worryingly, the interdepartmental group who recently published their report on the recommendations of the scoping inquiry, seem to be completely unaware of the European Court decision, or have chosen to act as if Ireland is not party to the European Convention on Human Rights. Their report includes the assertion: 'It has been concluded in case law, at Supreme Court level, that the State does not have such liability.' What the report fails to say is that the European Court of Human Rights directly rejected this view in the O'Keeffe judgment. Survivors have already waited far too long and suffered too much. They cannot now be told that the justice they are owed can only be delivered if and when the State manages somehow to make the churches open their coffers Notwithstanding the fact that the State has failed miserably so far to adequately implement the ruling, it seems extraordinary that senior Government officials should now ignore its very existence. This contradiction raises a more fundamental question about the position of the Government and State with regard to its ECHR obligations. In Europe, the Government has accepted the ECHR ruling and engaged with the court regarding its progress in implementing its terms, albeit it has thrown so many obstacles in front of survivors that to date, only 158 have received redress. At home, the Government is denying its existence, and further delaying justice for the many, increasingly ageing, survivors of abuse. Is it possible that despite what Ireland's representatives are saying in Strasbourg, some elements of the State infrastructure still do not accept the rulings of the European Court? [ Why are the experiences of people, like me, who were resident in Temple Hill forgotten? Opens in new window ] So, what is it exactly that the State is saying to victims of sexual abuse in schools? Can the Government confirm that it accepts the ruling of the European Court which found that the State does bear a responsibility for abuse that occurred in schools? Can it confirm that it will now, finally, deliver redress and fulfil its own obligations to those victims who have waited far too long for justice? To be clear, the legal strategies adopted by religious organisations to avoid restitution to victims are unconscionable. And there are many who – rightly – applaud the Taoiseach when he stated it is the Government's 'intention, commitment and determination' to make religious organisations pay compensation for the abuse they inflicted on children in schools. It is also important to make clear that any individual or private organisation responsible for the abuse of children should be held liable – under both criminal and civil law. But this is not an either/or situation. The Government has overarching responsibility for ensuring survivors of abuse receive appropriate redress. Of course, it should use every power it has to force the churches to make reparations from their very considerable wealth. However, this should have absolutely no impact on its own obligation to fully implement the O'Keeffe judgment immediately and deliver the redress for which it has responsibility. Survivors have already waited far too long and suffered too much. They cannot now be told that the justice they are owed can only be delivered if and when the State manages somehow to make churches open their coffers for the schools they ran on behalf of the State. Meanwhile, current State policy is to leave victims and survivors spending years trying to navigate a complex and hostile legal terrain. This is not justice. This is retraumatising victims. [ Sex abuse in schools: State accused of ignoring its liability for redress Opens in new window ] For example, last December, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission wrote to the Minister for Education as part of our ongoing work in pursuit of redress for some of Louise O'Keeffe's classmates at Dunderrow National School (not a religious school) who had been similarly abused. To date, there has been no response from the Government. The 'Dunderrow women' have been known to the State for decades because, like Louise O'Keeffe, many of them provided statements to An Garda Síochána – the very statements that led to prosecution and conviction of their abuser. On hearing of the latest investigation and further delays of redress, one of the Dunderrow women said: 'I feel outraged that the Irish Government haven't put the redress scheme in place for all survivors of sexual abuse. I'm extremely angry that my abuse is not of concern to the Minister, that my abuse as a young girl, a child, does not count. I feel left out and worthless.' McEntee has said those responsible must pay. That means the State. A redress scheme must be established immediately, without the arbitrary and discriminatory conditions in the previous schemes, regardless of any new commission of investigation's outcome. The State must finally comply with the O'Keeffe judgment in full, and it must do so now. Survivors have waited long enough. Justice, truth and dignity, demand no less. Liam Herrick is chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
Irish Independent
22 minutes ago
- Irish Independent
Businesses ask for extension of foreign-earnings tax break
The FED can be claimed by people who are tax-resident in Ireland but who work overseas for part of the year in certain other countries. It provides relief from income tax up to €35,000 of annual pay, which means the most that can be saved in one year is €14,000. The person must spend a minimum of 30 days working in one of the relevant countries in a tax year. First introduced in 1994, the relief was cancelled in 2003, but reintroduced in Budget 2012 by Michael Noonan with the stated aim of supporting 'our export drive by aiding companies seeking to expand into emerging markets'. The original list had just five countries – the so-called BRICS of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. This has been expanded on several occasions since, and the total number of countries now covered is 30. In the push for Asian markets, the likes of Singapore and Korea have been added, and several Middle Eastern countries are there too – including Saudia Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain. The relief is now most often claimed by people working in the United Arab Emirates. The minimum number of qualifying days required in order to be eligible has also been steadily reduced, from an initial 60 to 40 from 2015 onwards, and to the current 30 from 2017. The cost of the tax relief to the Exchequer in 2022 – the most recent year for which data is available – was €3.2m. There were 447 claimants, down from the 720 recorded in 2019, but it is not clear as yet how big an impact the Covid pandemic had. The Department of Finance is currently doing a review of FED, with the final report due to be completed in advance of the Budget on October 7, when minister Paschal Donohoe will announce any tax changes. 'Part of the review process will involve gathering stakeholder feedback and reflecting on their insights,' according to a recently published report by the Tax Strategy Group. 'Based on engagements with industry thus far, stakeholders have asserted that FED plays an important role in encouraging and incentivising Irish businesses to expand their operations internationally. The most common proposals put forward by stakeholders have been to enhance the level of the relief to make trips abroad more worthwhile for employees and to extend the list of qualifying countries to further encourage diversification of markets.' The report by the Tax Strategy Group notes that the current economic uncertainty underlines the importance of building resilience, and that a Government push towards trade diversification could help promote this. In his speech to the National Economic Dialogue, a pre-Budget discussion forum, Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Simon Harris said the diversification of trade is 'more important than ever before', and that a set of actions focused on trade and market diversification is underway. 'There is an opportunity now for new ambition in our approach to market diversification,' Mr Harris said. 'This can encompass EU, UK or further afield. We are working with Irish exporters in exploring new markets, leveraging existing EU trade agreements, and strengthening their international presence.'
Irish Examiner
7 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
EU-US trade deal: Business groups welcome certainty but say 15% tariff 'still substantial burden'
Business groups have tentatively welcomed the framework trade agreement reached between the EU and the US, as it brings more certainty for firms, but the 15% tariff on imports to the US 'still represents a substantial burden for many industries'. On Sunday, US president Donald Trump met with EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen at his golf course in Scotland to finalise a framework trade deal with the EU. The agreement will see the US impose 15% tariffs on imports from the bloc. This is up from the 10% currently in place, but is lower than the 30% Mr Trump threatened to impose from August 1 should a deal not have been reached. Trade between the EU and the US accounts for almost a third of global trade. Speaking after the meeting, Mr Trump said: 'I think this is the biggest deal ever made.' Ms von der Leyen said the deal will 'bring stability, it will bring predictability'. Ms von der Leyen defended the trade deal as 'the best we could get', adding that it was not to be underestimated given the looming threat of 30% tariffs. A baseline tariff rate of 15% on EU goods imported into the US would apply to cars, semiconductors and pharmaceutical goods, Ms von der Leyen said. Meanwhile, a zero-for-zero tariff rate had been agreed for certain strategic products, including aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, and certain generic drugs. No decision has been made on a rate for wine and spirits. The deal also includes $600bn of EU investments in the US, along with EU purchases of US energy and military equipment. Ibec: Brexit-style supports needed Ibec chief executive Danny McCoy said the agreement brings an 'end to a significant amount of uncertainty for some businesses'. 'However, a 15% tariff still represents a substantial burden for many industries. 'Sectors which rely heavily on the US market, and operate within small margins, will once again be significantly impacted by an additional 5% tariff on top of what they have already had to absorb over the past several months, and well in excess of the 1% effective tariff which existed before April." He added: 'Our message to the Government, as it was with the 10% tariff, is that the most exposed sectors will require support similar to the interventions provided as a response to Brexit. Chamber Ireland: Viable firms need tariff supports Chamber Ireland welcomed the agreement on trade tariffs, with its chief executive Ian Talbot stating: 'Certainty is critical for businesses, and we've seen the impact of uncertainty over the past couple of months in terms of investment. 'While tariffs are never welcome news for businesses on either side of the Atlantic, reaching an agreement — however imperfect — is preferable to no deal. It, at least, allows companies to plan and adapt in the short term.' Mr Talbot also called for the EU and the Government to create a 'fund to support viable businesses in adapting to new tariffs', and also to ensure 'potential arbitrage issues with Northern Ireland are clearly understood and addressed'. This is the latest deal Mr Trump has reached with a few countries around the world before his August 1 deadline. Agreements with the US have also been reached with Britain, Japan, Indonesia, and Vietnam, but Mr Trump's administration has failed to deliver on a promise of '90 deals in 90 days'. He has periodically railed against the EU, saying it was 'formed to screw the US on trade'. Mr Trump said that the EU wanted 'to make a deal very badly' and said, as he met Ms von der Leyen, that Europe had been 'very unfair to the US'. His main bugbear is the US merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which reached $235bn in 2024, according to the US Census Bureau data. The EU points to the US surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance. Mr Trump also talked about the 'hundreds of billions of dollars' that tariffs were bringing in. Additional reporting Reuters
