In the media

Originally posted on Business Post 3 December 2023.  Nobody wants to be seen to profit from the housing crisis, but everyone loses out if we insist on retaining the tax status quo. You cannot profit from the housing crisis. This seems to be the guiding principle behind the reported resistance by Fine Gael to introducing any form of tax relief which might help address the property supply problems. This aversion to property tax incentives is a consequence of the great recession a decade ago. It doesn’t seem to be the amount involved that presents the problem, as much as the very notion that a property incentive could be part of a solution to a current market failure. Big income tax reliefs for rented residential accommodation, renewal projects for cities and towns, holiday cottages and student accommodation contributed to the property boom and subsequent crash. Many houses and apartments derived their value not from their location or the accommodation they offered, but from the attractiveness of the tax relief on their purchase. As a 2006 review of property tax incentives by Indecon, the economic consultants, put it, in addition to increasing investment in projects, “the tax incentives had led to an increase in site prices, financial returns to promoters and property prices”. That Indecon report was one of a number of reviews into tax incentives commissioned by the government in 2005, amid alarm that Ireland had (yet again) overdone the whole property tax break thing. The reversal of the tax reliefs agenda started in 2006, but by that time it was too late to manage the popping of the property bubble in an orderly way. The chaos that ensued in the following few years has eclipsed another memory: that these property incentives contributed to improved housing supply. Analysis by the Economic and Social Research Institute found that persistent increases in supply and demand from the early 2000s resulted in housing supply averaging 84,000 units per annum between 2005 and 2007. Think of how an average supply of 84,000 units per annum now would help the current situation. Of course, it is too simplistic to attribute supply levels of this order solely to a favourable tax regime. In the previous decade when government got nervous about the housing market, the 1998 Bacon report identified that the key drivers of the housing market were economic growth, demography, cost of finance and the speed of the supply response. Now the problem driver is the lack of speed of the supply response, despite the recent interest rate rises. Unlike government interventions in the property market over the last 40 years, the tax system is not currently being used as a lever of government policy. While there have been adjustments to the stamp duty regime in favour of residential property development as compared to commercial development, and in recent weeks some tinkering with the refurbishment rules for landlords, there has been no broadly-based incentive introduced which might foster property supply. The Department of Finance’s own guidelines on tax incentives say that any new relief must be prompted by market failure, time-bound and re-evaluated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they continue to fulfil their intended purpose. How much more does the market need to fail by before tax reliefs are put back on the agenda? Previous tax reliefs have primarily been directed towards the buyer by granting future tax deductions from the purchase cost. Now the priority should be for measures that reduce development costs, ease cashflow concerns and make investment more appealing. During the pandemic we warehoused tax debt effectively to promote business survival. The same could be done for the construction sector by offering PAYE and Vat payment deferral associated with wages and materials costs incurred as units are built. Arrears would be collected when the housing development has been completed and sold. Another possibility would be to provide enhanced tax deductions for the cost of training workers in the construction industry. Boosting allowances for investment by builders in heavy plant, machinery and safety equipment could accelerate the supply of high-quality, affordable homes. Any such allowances should be time bound, and linked and targeted to the type of high density affordable housing most needed. The great advantage of tax incentives is that they can be delivered quickly. Yet we seem to be closing off any reasonable political discourse on approaches of this type purely on ideological grounds. Well publicised fire safety and structural safety construction defects in some existing developments don’t help the case for more incentives for developers. When interest groups put forward ideas for tax breaks, the most fervent advocates are usually those who will benefit most. Yet builders and developers are not the only ones who would benefit from reducing tax costs and barriers to residential property supply. Families need homes, and employers need their workers to have decent accommodation convenient to the workplace. It is politically difficult to get away from the notion that no one should profit from the housing crisis. But it is only the exchequer that profits if we insist on retaining the tax status quo. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Originally posted on Business Post 5 November 2022.  Conditions may be chaotic, but the outlook for the Irish exchequer is not necessarily bleak. We live in very strange times if a key determinant of economic success is whether or not the weather will be cold in Europe over the winter. Yet that is the unavoidable consequence of the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine and the chaos it has created. Chaos is contagious, and dealing with it saps resources, but at least last week’s exchequer returns showed yet another bumper tax harvest in Ireland. It used to be the case that tax yields could be predicted fairly accurately by reference to GDP. If GDP increased, say by 5 per cent, then tax yields would also increase by about 5 per cent. This year at budget time, the GDP growth forecast was 10 per cent – but the tax yield growth forecast, at 19.2 per cent, is almost twice that. A few factors have put the sums askew in our favour. One is timing. A higher proportion of income tax and corporation tax gets collected in the last quarter of the year. Now that budget day routinely falls in October – and it was even earlier this year – predictions of the trend are more complicated. Another factor was the pandemic, which threw all forms of straightforward comparisons with previous years out the window. Thirdly, successive tax policies over the past ten years have narrowed the income tax base, meaning that fewer individuals pay the highest proportion of income tax. That makes calculating a reliable average tricky. As well as all this, we taxed our way out of the great recession mainly through higher Vat rates, but we have forgotten to reduce them. The standard Vat rate of 23 per cent in this country is among the highest in Europe, so a surge in price inflation also means a surge in Vat receipts. Corporation tax yields dominate the exchequer returns. Government never misses an opportunity to tell us how fragile that high yield might be, though there are good reasons for it. Many of the major companies established in Ireland are from the ICT or pharmaceutical sectors, which have shown extraordinary growth and profitability over the past several years. International corporate tax reforms since 2012 have restricted or eliminated opportunities for multinational corporates to locate profits in very low tax regimes, resulting in more tax being paid in this country. In some cases, capital allowances to encourage companies to establish here have expired, leaving more profits within the annual charge to corporation tax. So how might the current chaotic conditions really impact on government capacity to tax, and then spend? During the pandemic, those on higher wages were less likely to lose their jobs. However, this time there are clear signals that some jobs in the ICT sector are vulnerable. Twitter is letting staff go – as is Stripe, which has openly admitted it got it wrong on economic growth and cost management. There are also legitimate fears that some jobs in the lower-end services sectors and hospitality could go, as inflation, higher fuel bills and higher interest rates squeeze consumer spending. This month’s exchequer figures neither confirm nor challenge consumer spending trends, as Vat is paid every two months – and this wasn’t one of them. Despite this uncertainty, it does not automatically follow that the outlook for the Irish exchequer is bleak. International tax rules have not changed and are less likely to do so in an increasingly protectionist world. That is important for any small economy like Ireland’s that is dependent on foreign direct investment. Any disruption to our reliance for tax revenue on the corporate sector, high-income individuals or consumer spend will most likely be caused by poor domestic political decisions, rather than by outside influences. In a period of inflation, there tend to be greater opportunities for employment. It is counterintuitive, but there is an inverse relationship between inflation and the unemployment rate. Higher inflation leads to higher wages, leading to more attractive working conditions. This reality is borne out by a shortage of staff being felt across almost all sectors. It is not going to be easy to get through the current inflationary, fuel security and monetary crises, and it is right to highlight the risks that are not of our own making. But it is not right to identify these external risks without acknowledging that we would do most harm to ourselves with domestic policy mistakes. If we can improve our accommodation, health provision and migrant policy without recourse to increasing the national debt and without damaging confidence in the corporate and consumer sectors, we should be able to manage through the current chaos just fine. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Originally posted on Business Post 22 October 2022.  Last week’s budget correction in the Finance Bill means that trades, manufacturing and services are now treated equally in terms of tax and supports, but landlords and tenants need more. Budgets are tricky things, as the British have recently discovered. They are not merely about balancing the national books. They are about ensuring there is a business environment which can fund national spending aspirations while providing decent levels of employment, wages and spending power. They are also about convincing investors that your country is a safe place to put their money. This is a critical consideration for Ireland, given that about half of our national debt is owned abroad. While there is a high element of drama around budget day, the publication of the Finance Bill last Thursday was a far more mundane affair. If budget speeches are poetry (at a stretch), finance bills are most definitely prose. A finance bill provides the detail of the Budget Day adventures, but also corrects its mishaps. Given that Budget 2023 had involved spending so much money to deal with the cost of living crisis, mishaps such as the concrete levy were inevitable. Far more important than correcting the concrete levy was the change to the Temporary Business Energy Support Scheme (TBESS). The scheme, announced on Budget Day, was for tax-compliant businesses that experienced a significant increase in their natural gas and electricity costs. The mishap here was that the announcement confined this support to businesses taxed under “Case I”. This Case I moniker is jargon which not even tax students remark on, as there is no difference between trades and services when calculating profits. It’s a relic inherited from the 19th century, yet it was the term which the Minister for Finance used in his budget speech to exclude professional services businesses from the TBESS. In practice, it would have meant that the high street convenience shop would get some help in paying for the electricity used by the soft drinks cooler, but the doctors’ surgery next door would get no help to pay for the electricity used by the vaccine refrigerator. Official Ireland has long been suspicious of the services industry when it comes to business supports and tax incentives. Schemes such as the Employment and Investment Incentive Scheme (EIIS), whereby investors can get a tax deduction to buy into a business, are not available to services companies. Start-up services companies are not eligible for a corporation tax holiday, but trading and manufacturing companies are. Owner-managed trading and manufacturing companies are allowed to retain profits to reinvest, but profits retained by owner-managed services companies are subject to a corporation tax surcharge. More troubling, however, is the idea that services are in some way inferior to the more traditional trading and manufacturing activities. Such an idea does not make for good policy. The category of “professional, scientific & technical activities” accounts for over 10 per cent of all taxes collected, and 20 per cent of all self-employed income tax and universal social charge, according to recent figures from Revenue. That’s a big sector to overlook when it comes to providing state supports, yet that was the original premise of the budget statement. It has now been corrected in the Finance Bill. Perhaps the real surprise was that TBESS overlooked the services sector in the first place. An important policy aspect of the pandemic supports like the EWSS and the pandemic unemployment payment was that they were agnostic as to the nature and size of the business being helped, where it was located or its legal form. Companies, partnerships and the self-employed were all treated the same way. While ‘trickle-down’ economic policy is increasingly discredited by no less a person than the American president, a ‘rising tide’ economic policy which attempts to support all industries in equal measure seems to have something going for it. In this country it may help explain the remarkable fact that the nation does not have to borrow to provide the cost-of-living supports promised in the budget. If trades, manufacturing and services are now receiving equivalent policy treatment in the budget and Finance Bill mix, the missing piece is the private residential sector. There were modifications to the tax rules for landlords and tenants in the bill, but they don’t go far enough. A change to the way rental income is taxed to reflect all of the business circumstances of landlords and not just their rental business would help keep smaller investors in the market. A system of tax debt warehousing for builders – like the system in operation during the pandemic – to defer Vat and PAYE bills until houses are completed and sold would make a significant difference to the financing of property development at very little cost to the exchequer. Taken together, the budget and Finance Bill package demonstrates policy maturity and competence. Service business is being accommodated in tax and support policy which too often in the past was restricted to manufacturing, foreign direct investment and exporting activity. The next urgent step is to include the property sector. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Originally posted on Business Post 27 September 2022.  Paschal Donohoe and Michael McGrath have managed a careful balancing act, but the capacity issues that have caused problems in many sectors remain Like the last two budgets, this one was a response to a crisis. Instead of the pandemic, however, it sought to address a cost of living crisis created largely externally. Introducing significant fiscal initiatives can be tricky, as the UK government has learned in recent days. This Irish budget, however, has a good chance of keeping the national finances stable while improving the lot of most citizens. Paschal Donohoe, the Finance Minister, and Michael McGrath, the Public Expenditure Minister, avoided three potential pitfalls. First of all, the measures they announced should not disrupt the existing tax base. Finance ministers, like doctors, should above all else do no harm. The exchequer is funded primarily by corporate activity, consumer activity and the income tax paid by higher earners. None of the tax measures should disrupt any of these three key sources. In common with individuals, businesses are receiving assistance with spiralling energy costs. While we are often reminded that 50 per cent of the corporation tax yield comes from just 10 companies, it remains the case that 50 per cent of the corporation tax yield comes from the rest of the profitable companies operating in this country. Many of these smaller firms will be a direct beneficiary of the 40 per cent energy cost rebate scheme. The sizeable grants and social welfare payments will go towards sustaining people’s purchasing power and therefore help sustain Vat receipts. Higher energy costs also result in higher Vat yields. When petrol prices jumped from €1.40 per litre to around €1.90 per litre, for example, the government’s share rose by €0.11. The increase in the 20 per cent rate band will directly benefit approximately 1 million taxpayers who will see a greater portion of their income taxed at 20 per cent rather than 40 per cent. This is not so much a relieving measure as a preservation of the status quo, because incomes are also increasing in response to inflationary pressures. The change in the rate band should be seen as preserving and securing the high proportion of income tax paid by higher earners, rather than giving anybody a tax break. Secondly, the government has avoided borrowing for its tax and welfare measures. That’s a good call given that euro interest rates are on the increase, but it is also an important signal to potential investors in this country that the national finances are stable. Avoiding borrowing has only been possible thanks to an exceptional corporation tax yield, but as most of the tax bounce seems to have been diverted to one off measures, applying the budget surplus in this manner is a good use of available funds. Many finance ministers across the world would be envious of the Irish surplus available coming into this budget. Thirdly, while some of the additional welfare payments such as the increase in pensions and unemployed benefit will be permanent fixtures, the ratio of enhanced long-term welfare payments to once of reliefs seems to me to be about right. The gamble here is that the inflationary surge – and in particular the energy costs surge – will be short lived. There is of course no guarantee when, or even if, the pressures will abate and not all prices will ever revert to their pre-2022 levels. The mistake that may have been made in the budget is that much of the budgetary emphasis has been on an ability to purchase rather than on an ability to supply. A lack of capacity is a huge problem in our economy. It is encouraging to see an increase in the number of doctor only medical cards, for example, but it will increase the pressure on GPs. It should be a matter of national pride that our third level system is so accessible and after today even more affordable, but are we investing enough in our universities and colleges? It is also excellent to provide €500 in an annual tax credit for hard-pressed renters, but is the €6.2 billion of funding promised to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage going to improve the supply of accommodation quickly enough? Overall, the government has done a good job. If capacity issues in the economy are addressed with the additional spending, it could even be an exceptional job. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Originally posted on Business Post 10 September 2022.  The findings of the current Commission on Taxation and Welfare come at a moment where inflation is rampant, and they could well prove to be a harbinger of impending economic mayhem.  What is the best early predictor of economic chaos? Is it a slump in GDP, or a surge in inflation or interest rates, or perhaps a dip in the purchasing managers index? In this country, it may be the establishment of a Commission on Taxation. While the findings of the current Commission on Taxation (and Welfare, to give it its full title) have been seeping out in the press in the past few days, its report will land at a time of inflation not seen since the 1980s, and of energy chaos not seen since the 1970s. Its predecessor commission, the second of that name, was announced in early 2008 when we still thought things were booming, but published in 2009 when it was clearly evident they were not. The original of the species, the first Commission on Taxation, was mooted in the late 1970s, but concluded in the grinding economic difficulties of the mid-1980s. All of these tax commissions were made up of knowledgeable and committed people. Their reports were careful and informed, and there is no reason to think that the report of the current commission will be any different. Only their timing is lousy. Taxation is based on technocratic principles, but ultimately it is a political process. The maxim of that long-ago and otherwise forgotten French minister for finance, that taxation is the art of plucking a goose with the minimum amount of hissing, remains true. This maxim tells us all we need to know in advance about the likely shape of the budget which is now just a fortnight away. Those of us in industry associations who lobby at the annual National Economic Dialogue and write anxious pre-budget submissions to government may have been troubling deaf heaven with our bootless cries. Instead, there are likely to be just two imperatives as Budget 2023 is framed. The first is to look after citizens and businesses whose livelihoods are being crippled by energy costs and inflation. Here, we should benefit from the lessons of the pandemic. The pandemic budgets of 2020 and 2021 were interventionist to an extent not seen in the previous decade. The 2007-08 crash left politicians and policymakers with a horror of manipulating the tax system to any purpose other than maximising tax collection. No serious attempts were made to help address homelessness, infrastructure deficits, or education and healthcare capacity shortfalls with tax incentives and reliefs. By contrast, interventionism was the watchword during the pandemic. The income tax system was thrown into reverse and used to subsidise wages, businesses were given what were in effect interest-free loans by deferring collection of Vat and PAYE, and Vat rates were temporarily reduced. This year’s economic rebound strongly suggests that temporary interventionist tax policies can work extremely well. Temporary reductions in Vat and excise can make inflated prices more manageable for people. Income tax reductions (unlikely to be as temporary because, after an exceptional inflationary period, not all prices go down) will make goods feel more affordable, particularly fuel. Sentiment is everything. An attractive and effective tax package should, from the political perspective, also quieten potentially noisy opposition benches. A percentage income tax or Vat reduction trumps a fancy tax policy or a principled position any time. The second imperative is to ensure that the exchequer continues to be able to provide help. The exchequer returns published on September 2 are unusually rosy. Perhaps more important, though, from the budgetary perspective, was the Department of Finance Annual Taxation Report published the previous day. This report confirms that the Irish exchequer is funded by higher income taxpayers, corporate activity and consumer spending. As long as those three sources are guarded, an appropriate exchequer response to a serious crisis such as the current situation is possible. There are no steps that any government can take to guarantee their preservation, but a prudent budget will ensure that at least these sources are not threatened. Amid all these considerations, it is unlikely that the concerns of any individual business sector or industry group will feature large in the budgetary arithmetic. Nor is it likely that there will be anything too new or innovative in how taxes are raised or collected. Instead, we may well see a series of targeted and reversible tax-relieving measures to supplement direct help provided under the social welfare code – an income tax relief is not much help if you’re not paying tax in the first place. The report of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare is due to be formally published shortly after budget day. Its conclusions will surely not be discarded, but new tax ideas are more likely to feature in future national budgets framed during less stormy economic times. And if, at some stage, a future finance minister announces the establishment of a fourth such commission, history suggests it will be time to prepare for the worst. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Originally posted on Business Post 06 August 2022.  The resolution of the agriculture emissions problem requires it to be seen for what it is: a problem of oversupply of a by-product. The vote of no confidence put down by Sinn Féin in the Dáil last month was a failure. Not only that, it seemed to galvanise the government parties while rallying some of the independents in the Dáil, whether they belonged to the government parties’ gene pool or not. Thus stabilised, government ministers should have gone on their summer holidays feeling reasonably secure, until the dispute over carbon emissions targets came to prominence. Climate change is not a little thing, but it should not trigger a crisis within government over carbon emissions targets in the farming sector. The concerns of farmers serve as a magnifying glass on political activity, and this particular magnifying glass can burn. The government’s position is not helped, either, by a discernible scepticism about climate concerns in the public mind fuelled by growing concerns over energy security. Fear of unbearably hot conditions over the next decade are being eclipsed by fear of unbearably cold homes over the next winter if Russian gas supplies to Europe are turned off. The EU’s relatively unambitious plan to cut gas consumption by 15 per cent has fallen foul of so many terms, conditions and exclusions that the net reduction might well be a lot less. It depends on every EU member state playing nice, and there are no guarantees of that. Few enough leaders across Europe have sufficient political capital to withdraw any existing services, or impose widespread restrictions on their electorates, and hope to survive the next election. This fact is at the root of the EU’s difficulties in agreeing restrictions on energy consumption, even if they can make the Russian sanctions regime more effective. Agreeing restrictions to make Ireland’s carbon sanctions regime more acceptable to the electorate is also at the heart of the current government problem, of which this is only the first instalment. If the government can survive this rattling over the next few months, it will be due in no small part to the disarray of the opposition on the issue. In all this, however, both government and opposition parties have missed the potential of commercial policies when it comes to achieving their objectives. There are many ways to view the problem of carbon emissions in the agriculture sector, but its resolution requires it to be seen for what it is: a problem of oversupply of a by-product. Agricultural oversupply can be resolved. In the past, butter mountains have been levelled and wine lakes have been drained when agriculture policies were modified to manage them. And before anyone starts whinging about subsidies to farmers, remember that for all its faults, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is designed to ensure food security at reasonable prices for consumers. This is not just about incentives, but about euros and cents. If, despite protestations, the national herd gets forcibly reduced, say by 25 per cent, then the prices paid to eligible farmers need to increase by 33 per cent through direct government intervention. It won’t make the prospect of herd reduction attractive for the farming industry, because farmers are justifiably proud of their herds and of the quality of their produce. Equally, however, farmers are business people who, for the most part, recognise that restrictions for a broader purpose in their industry are sometimes necessary. One of the faults of the current CAP is that it is not clear enough about funding climate action. There won’t even be a method to measure its impact “until 2026 at the latest”, according to the EU’s own factsheets. So much for the notion that what gets measured gets done. More broadly, providing higher agriculture subsidies in Ireland to combat climate change may not be particularly effective. The world market for beef or dairy is unlikely to contract just because Ireland produces less. In this case, the ultimate consumer is the planet, not the person. We would be responding to the science, not to the demand. Perhaps the main obstacle to such a strategy is the lack of imminence of the problem. Climate activists the world over have seen their objectives topple down the policy agendas as governments grapple with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its consequences. It is hard to marshal political support for any problem not crystallising before the next election, or even before the summer holidays. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland