Sometimes I think about 10 people in the country understand the move made towards individualisation of the tax code, and five of those have to keep checking with the other five for clarification. Yet IBEC, the employers' organisation, endorsed individualisation again this week, while neglecting to mention that it marks a vital shift in values in our culture.
Interestingly, at a time when there are moans that all the political parties are indistinguishable, there are clear differences between them on this issue. For example, Fine Gael has promised if elected to restore parity between two-income and single-income married families over the course of the first two to three budgets of its term in government. Michael Noonan has gone so far as to say Fianna Fail's policy is about conscription of women into the labour force, and Fine Gael is in favour of choice for women, not conscription.
The Labour Party's Derek McDowell said the Minister for Finance's concept of individualisation is about setting one group against another: it awards more money to those where both parents work and less to those families where one parent chooses to stay at home to care for children or other family. It has called on the Minister for Finance not to pursue further individualisation of tax in the forthcoming Budget.
The Greens are adamantly opposed to this form of individualisation. Like CORI (the Conference of Religious of Ireland), they believe a framework like basic income would redress the inequalities in our tax system. For example, as currently framed, the financial savings from treating a single-income family differently from a two-income family will go entirely to benefit the top 30 per cent of earners in the country.
Individualisation of the standard rate band, if Charlie McCreevy continues on his merry way, will mean that a two-income family will be able to earn £56,000 before paying tax at the higher rate. A single income family will pay higher tax after £28,000, with at the moment, a paltry £3,000 home carers' tax allowance to allegedly redress the balance. Because of the widening of the standard rate band, high earners will also start paying the higher rate of tax at a later stage. Charlie McCreevy's individualisation is a divisive tool which favours the rich.
Fianna Fail, the great gambler, is putting its money on two high-risk propositions. And because they are inextricably yoked to it, the PDs are putting their money on the same horses. The first gamble is, that since most people don't understand individualisation, all they care about is that, after the last Budget, they had more money in their pay packet. Fianna Fail spun that for all it was worth, claiming it was a by-product of individualisation. The reality was that with all the money swooshing about, Charlie McCreevy could have widened the standard rate band while retaining parity between one- and two-income families.
He chose to do what he did. He could have done lots of other things. For example, he could have made tax credits refundable, which would have greatly benefited low-income earners.
He could have introduced some form of individualisation, but compensated by a massive increase in taxable child benefit. This would have made some dent in our appalling rates of child poverty. It would also allow people some choice in how they wanted to have their children minded, whether primarily by themselves, or by paid childcare. But no, he gambled that people would only see the increase in the pay packet without looking at underlying values.
THE second gamble is on the notorious shortness of political memory. Individualisation is an issue which distinguishes the parties from each other. But if the electorate forgets its anger at last year's Budget, Fianna Fail hopes it will not matter on the doorsteps. But there may well be a factor which Fianna Fail is not taking into account.
Garret FitzGerald speculated in these pages last week that up to a dozen Independents might be elected next time. The current doughty band who prop up the Government have been keeping their heads down on individualisation for fear of precipitating an election when they are not ready. But others may well campaign on it. And parties like Nora Bennis's Christian Democrats will have a tailor-made platform.
There is another intriguing scenario. At the moment, those Independents who could be loosely described as old or disenchanted Fianna Fail lack a leader who could move them beyond their constituency concerns. But they could actually form a party with more members than the PDs if someone were elected who could bond them into more than a group of individuals. As Fianna Fail moves further away from once core values, the likelihood of such a person emerging increases. I would not rule out that possibility, and some very worried Fianna Fail people in the west are not ruling it out either.
So will Fianna Fail win its gambles? That's up to us. Individualisation is a powerful idea as well as a tax measure. Individualisation says it is individuals who matter, and that a parent who takes time out to mind children is not providing an essential service, that it is some kind of luxury lifestyle choice. Real work happens in the paid labour force.
IBEC, with its usual sledgehammer subtlety, managed to underscore that point this week. It claimed in its pre-Budget submission that it is concerned about quality of life, about the cost of housing and accommodation, transport and travel-to-work times and the cost of childcare. All very important issues, particularly for those who are not cushioned by high salaries. It goes on to say: "A failure to improve the quality of life will ultimately disrupt the social equilibrium, constrain the capacity of the economy and inhibit its stable and sustainable long-run growth."
But here's a question for IBEC. At the moment it is supporting the view that all parents should be actively involved in the paid labour force, complete with State-supported childcare. What if that is also in danger of disrupting the social equilibrium, or even of inhibiting the stable and sustainable long-run growth, not just of the economy, but of our society?
Intangibles do not feature on IBEC's list of factors affecting quality of life. Community spirit; neighbourliness; children who receive quality and quantity parenting time; voluntarism; participation in the civic life of a society. Yet these intangibles make or break a society.
In contrast to IBEC and the current Government, some of the political parties are asking - is it a good idea for all parents to be out at work? Does it have drastic implications for the quality not only of family life, but of life in our parishes and communities?
So if we care about issues like this, for once we have a choice - to reward those parties who are not willing to sacrifice quality of life for the short-term gains of the Celtic Tiger. In short, to make sure that Fianna Fail loses its bets.
bobrien@irish-times.ie