Financial Resolution No. 3: Capital Gains Tax

Minister of State at the Department of Transport (Deputy Seán Canney)

I move:

(1) THAT section 28 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (No. 39 of 1997) be amended, in subsection (3), by the substitution of “31 per cent” for “33 per cent”.

(2) THAT paragraph (1) of this Resolution shall have effect in respect of disposals of assets made on or after 7 October 2026.

(3) IT is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

Financial Resolution No. 3 provides for a reduction in the standard rate of capital gains tax from 33% to 31% in section 28(3) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. Capital gains tax is currently applied at the standard rate of 33% to chargeable gains arising from the disposal of assets. The disposal of an asset may comprise of the sale, gift or exchange of an asset by a person, as well as that person receiving compensation or insurance for it.

Parts 19, 20 and 21 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 provide for the taxation of chargeable gains and are structured to apply the standard rate of capital gains tax to gains accruing on the disposal of assets subject to specific exceptions. Exceptions and reliefs are then provided for various subcategories of assets. The Tax Consolidation Act 1997 defines an asset for the purposes of the capital gains tax in broad terms. It covers both tangible and intangible assets, including assets that have been acquired or created.

Irish capital gains apply to gains arising on the disposal of worldwide assets by Irish tax residents. The reduction in the standard rate of capital gains is intended to increase and expand domestic investment activity. It will also contribute to Ireland's competitive position for attracting international investment and help support entrepreneurs and SMEs in scaling their business. This decrease in the standard rate of capital gains tax will result in a cost to the Exchequer of €46.5 million for 2026 and a full-year cost of €186 for 2027. I move this resolution which I see as a key part of the Government's policy to encourage domestic enterprise and investment.

Deputy David Cullinane

I do not know why Fine Gael Members get so upset when people like me say that they represent a privileged class because here we go again with another resolution. This time it is capital gains tax and, as the Minister of State said, it will cost €186 million. Between this, the previous measure and other measures, which are investor tax cuts, it is €1 billion over five years.

I said it earlier and I want to point it out again to those on the Government benches who are across from me. They really would want a brass neck to sit there and say this is fair and a brass neck to turn around and say it to people who are healthcare assistants, SNAs, home care assistants, and people who are on modest incomes doing Trojan work in our health services and schools, who got shafted again in this budget with a €5 a week tax cut. I heard this Government over the last number of weeks building up its budget, Donald Trump-style, "This is going to be a big tax plan". It was not very big for those 1.5 million workers who will receive €5 a week that will be gone even before they get it.

The same Government, which said with a straight face that this was a budget for workers, came in with these measures for investors in this resolution on capital gains tax that will cost the taxpayer €186 million and say that this is fair. What planet are you guys living on? Look at what that money could do when the Government did not put one additional cent of capital funding into the health service beyond what was in the national development plan allocation, and the same for housing. I had debates with the Minister across from me on special needs assistants, and we need more of them. Look how much could have been invested in that area, as well as childcare, health generally, and all of the areas where we could spend that money in a way that deals with the inequalities in society, and then have a budget that says to those 1.5 million workers, "We have your back and we are going to do something for you".

This is the second budget in a row that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have shafted the vast majority of ordinary working people and the second budget in a row when the Government has come in with tax measures which are designed to support investors, millionaires and multimillionaires. The Government seems to do it with a straight face and then their colleagues on the Independent benches get all upset when those of us on this side of the House point out the unfairness, the inequality and the fact that what it is actually doing is deepening privilege in this State and representing privilege. That is what is happening here, driven by Fine Gael, supported by Fianna Fáil and it seems supported by some of the Independents today.

I do not believe this makes sense. I work on the basis that if I were framing a budget, I would have the healthcare assistant, special needs assistant, home care worker and the person who works in the hospitality or retail sector on a fraction of the wages we get in this House at the front of my mind, not these investors. I would not look at capital acquisitions tax or capital gains tax, but it seems the Members opposite have a different view and believe in a different Ireland from the one that I certainly want to see.

Deputy Ged Nash

When I said in my budget response to the Tánaiste and the Minister, Deputy Chambers, that this was not a budget for people who get up early in the morning but a budget for people who can afford to have a bloody good lie-on, this was what I had in mind. As Deputy Cullinane said, this is about supporting those who are already privileged. I do not know if the Government fully comprehends how jarring this is to the people we represent who do get up early in the morning, who have no choice other than to pay their taxes, and who were abandoned by the Government last year to favour the hospitality sector. Now we are seeing another very significant transfer of wealth from working people to those who by definition already own significant assets.

There is also an argument that if the Government is cutting capital gains tax, there is some evidence over the years, and I am not saying that I am backing it, that if it is significantly cut, it drives the kinds of transactions the Government seems to be after here. That might be done at a different point in the economic cycle to try to generate investment and promote the development of enterprise and so on, but it should certainly not be done now.

I am not saying there is an argument for it one way or the other. We opposed this on the basis of equity, fairness and the fact there are more demands on the Exchequer resource, which is finite, even though to listen to some Government Members, you would think we have infinite resources in terms of how budgets are managed and where the Government's priorities are. There is no case that can be made for this, none whatsoever. If we are taking this, the capital acquisitions tax proposition that we voted on earlier and the hare-brained idea that the Government again makes an intervention on help to buy, that is coming in at a full year cost of €300-odd million. It is a very significant amount of money. That would almost get the Government the €400 energy credit that most of us here on the Opposition benches have been arguing for on behalf of working people who need the support this year, because those who are the target of this initiative certainly do not need the support. It is not something that we could support. There is no case for it. It is a sop to a very small minority in society who would go on to sell their business anyway and realise their asset regardless. I do not get this; I do not understand it; I do not comprehend it.

I go back to the point that I made earlier. Initiatives like this, at this expense to the Exchequer, really jar with people who will be lying awake tonight worried about how they are going to pay their energy bills and how they are going to pay for the shop by the end of this week.

Deputy Rory Hearne

It seems that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have given up on supporting or even pretending to support the majority of people in this country, that is, working people and people who are not of privilege and high income. It is not surprising for Fine Gael, which traditionally was always seen and clear as being the party that stood for the big farmer and others. Fianna Fáil always prided itself as being the party that stood for working people and small farmers. However, it is clear that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have completely merged into one party that has the one same approach, which is about defending and supporting privilege rather than standing up for ordinary people. Dublin City Council, in this very city, has increased rents for the most vulnerable people. It said it does not have the funding to fix mould and damp that children are getting sick in, and the Government is giving away €600 million in the next three and a half years to those who already have wealth and income.

It is said that budgets are about choices, and that the choices you make show what you think and who you are supporting. What is very clear is that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in this budget have shown that they are on the side of the wealthy, investors and developers while others across this country are struggling. There is a child in my constituency who is still not in school because the schools do not have enough resources to give that child a school place. Feed Our Homeless in Finglas is distributing food packages because families do not have enough food on the table. This is not an equal republic. It is not a fair country, and the Government's policies such as this are making it more unequal. Rather than investing in permanent changes such as public childcare, affordable housing or a second tier of child benefit, things that would be make changes and lift people out of poverty, the Government is giving €600 million in this proposal and change alone to those who already have and it is leaving the have-nots completely behind.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I heard the Labour Party say this Government is favouring the hospitality sector. I remind the same party that the hospitality sector also includes small hairdressers, small businesses and family hotels. That is who the Government favoured. I could not see anything wrong with that. They are people who create employment. When I hear people saying that it is unfair, I would like those same people to look at where most tax in this country comes from. It is the foreign direct investment that comes here. This is trying to ensure that we create an environment where that type of investment is welcomed into this country. That is the investment that creates the jobs and the work that helps all the working people who want to have jobs, and it is helps them go about it. What do we want to do? Do we want to hunt all those people out of the country, and leave us with what - nothing? Where will the tax come from then - the tax that pays for all the services and runs the budget that was run off here today? Where did that money come from? Was it out of the sky? The majority of it came from a number of very large companies that see fit and trust this country to invest their money in. If they were to listen to some of the speeches that were made here today and thought those people could implement those policies, they would pack their bags. It is the exact same as Michael O'Leary said a week ago, that if certain people were in power he would be gone overnight. We all heard him say it.

A Deputy

Good riddance.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

For anyone who says a person like that is not good for this country, I remind them of the seventies, the eighties and even the nineties, when people had to pay a fortune to come home from England if they wanted to go to a funeral if a parent died. Thanks be to God for Michael O'Leary being there. The only thing that is wrong with him is that we do not have enough people like him to create more work-----

Deputy Noel Grealish

Hear, hear.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

-----and more employment. What we want in this country is employment and people who will invest in this country. That is why I welcome what is being proposed.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I appreciate the Government's position put more openly, perhaps, than the Government itself feels able to put it. However, that is right. The argument is that we need to do whatever the richest people in this country want and in the long run we will all benefit from it because it will trickle down. That is the argument: Michael O'Leary should get whatever he wants; the richest 3% who Deputy O'Donoghue wants to stand for up should get whatever they want because maybe ordinary people will benefit from it; and at a time when most people in this country are struggling, we should give almost €200 million of public money to very rich people. Very few people in this country are ever going to pay capital gains tax. People who pay capital gains tax are people who own multiple properties. I know those people are massively over-represented in this Dáil. There are people who have shares. There are vulture funds that speculate on properties. There are real estate investment trusts in which people have large amounts of crypto currency. It is a tiny minority and not just any random tiny minority. My problem regarding the previous debate is not about helping 3%. Of course, there are lots of policies that we should implement that will help small minorities of people, but the 2% or 1% we are talking here are not a random 1% or 2%. They are the richest 1% or 2%. They are the ones who are doing the best. We should not use public money to help those people when so many other people are struggling.

It is not true what was said about how most of the tax that is paying for this is coming from multinationals. That is not factually true. Income tax is a bigger source of tax than corporation tax. It is also not true that this policy of just lying down and asking, "What does Michael O'Leary want? What does Google want? What does Facebook want?", and doing whatever they want works out well for the entirety of this country. I do not believe it does. Fundamentally, it is an unsustainable model. I heard one of the Ministers earlier speaking about who creates wealth in this country and claiming that it is entrepreneurs who create wealth. It is workers who create wealth in this country. That is the basis of our economy: the people who actually work hard, some of whom get up early in the morning and some of whom work late-night shifts. They are the ones who create wealth in this economy and they are who should be prioritised in this budget as opposed to prioritising the wealthiest in the vague hope that somehow it is going to benefit the rest of us.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

It is important to correct the record. Deputy Healy-Rae said multinational corporations deliver us the most tax revenue. I will give him the 2023 figures. We can update them because the figures are a bit delayed. There were 3.3 million PAYE workers in 2023. Their annual pay between them was €130 billion, but they paid €32.9 billion in tax. On average, that was about 25% of their gross pay.

There were 170,000 employers. They got €318 billion in pre-tax profits and paid only €23.8 billion in tax. They got more than twice in profits what all the workers together got in pay but the workers still paid more in tax. It is incredible. Between them, all the workers got less and paid more and the people who are making the superprofits got more and paid less. That is the truth, the dirty secret of the Irish economy. Then the Government, in this one measure, wants to give employers another €180 million. It should give it to the people who need it - the SNAs, nurses, health workers, teachers, council workers and bus workers who actually keep the country going. Half the services cannot run in this country because the pay is so crap that young people are leaving the country because we do not pay them properly. Should we give it to people with multiple properties who are already wealthy, or to businesses, or should we give it to workers so they have decent pay and can possibly afford to pay their rents and maybe consider not having to leave the country? The answer to that question is obvious.

Deputy Thomas Gould

Once again, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and their buddies, the Independents, have given a tax cut of €186 million. I do not know if this Government or the Independents get it. There is anger out there tonight because, once again, this Government has shafted ordinary hard-working people, families, pensioners and young people. The Government is awash with money for the rich and wealthy, but what about the ordinary people? I heard Deputy Michael Healy-Rae talk about how this is a good thing. Will it be a good thing when the people are on the streets again next month? Will he change his mind then and will he be out walking with them? When the people go back onto the streets I will be standing with them and marching with them because Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Independents have shafted ordinary working people again.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

I am an employer myself. The people we are talking about are all paying the taxes in this country. If people were not investing in this country, no one would be working. Without the people we want to get investment from, we would have no workers to pay the tax. If we want to add up all the taxes, without the investors coming in, there would be nobody working and they would not pay tax. It is a circular economy. For fairness, if those who are doing well in this country are helping others to do well, I am for it. If they are not, I am against it. If people who are doing well help other families to survive and help other people to have a better life, I am for that. The two people Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned are the same people in the same tax purse - the employer and the worker.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As 20 minutes have elapsed, I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of this day: "That Financial Resolution No. 3 be hereby agreed to."

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

Is there no way to extend this debate?

Question put: "That the motion on Financial Resolution No. 3 be agreed to."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 95; Níl, 64; Staon, 0.

Tá

Aird, William.
Ardagh, Catherine.
Boland, Grace.
Brabazon, Tom.
Brennan, Brian.
Brennan, Shay.
Brophy, Colm.
Browne, James.
Burke, Colm.
Burke, Peter.
Butler, Mary.
Butterly, Paula.
Buttimer, Jerry.
Byrne, Malcolm.
Cahill, Michael.
Callaghan, Catherine.
Calleary, Dara.
Canney, Seán.
Carrigy, Micheál.
Cleere, Peter 'Chap'.
Clendennen, John.
Collins, Michael.
Collins, Niall.
Connolly, John.
Cooney, Joe.
Crowe, Cathal.
Cummins, John.
Currie, Emer.
Daly, Martin.
Dempsey, Aisling.
Devlin, Cormac.
Dillon, Alan.
Dolan, Albert.
Dooley, Timmy.
Feighan, Frankie.
Fitzmaurice, Michael.
Fleming, Sean.
Foley, Norma.
Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
Geoghegan, James.
Grealish, Noel.
Harkin, Marian.
Healy-Rae, Danny.
Healy-Rae, Michael.
Heneghan, Barry.
Heydon, Martin.
Higgins, Emer.
Keogh, Keira.
Kyne, Seán.
Lahart, John.
Lawless, James.
Lawless, Paul.
Lowry, Michael.
Maxwell, David.
McAuliffe, Paul.
McCarthy, Noel.
McConalogue, Charlie.
McCormack, Tony.
McEntee, Helen.
McGrath, Mattie.
McGrath, Séamus.
McGreehan, Erin.
Moran, Kevin Boxer.
Moynihan, Aindrias.
Moynihan, Michael.
Moynihan, Shane.
Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
Murphy, Michael.
Naughton, Hildegarde.
Neville, Joe.
Nolan, Carol.
O'Brien, Darragh.
O'Callaghan, Jim.
O'Connell, Maeve.
O'Connor, James.
O'Donnell, Kieran.
O'Donoghue, Richard.
O'Donovan, Patrick.
O'Flynn, Ken.
O'Meara, Ryan.
O'Shea, John Paul.
O'Sullivan, Christopher.
O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
Ó Cearúil, Naoise.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
Ó Muirí, Naoise.
Richmond, Neale.
Roche, Peter.
Scanlon, Eamon.
Smith, Brendan.
Smyth, Niamh.
Timmins, Edward.
Toole, Gillian.
Troy, Robert.
Ward, Barry.

Níl

Ahern, Ciarán.
Bacik, Ivana.
Bennett, Cathy.
Boyd Barrett, Richard.
Brady, John.
Buckley, Pat.
Byrne, Joanna.
Carthy, Matt.
Clarke, Sorca.
Conway-Walsh, Rose.
Coppinger, Ruth.
Cronin, Réada.
Crowe, Seán.
Cullinane, David.
Cummins, Jen.
Daly, Pa.
Devine, Máire.
Donnelly, Paul.
Ellis, Dessie.
Ennis, Daniel.
Farrelly, Aidan.
Gannon, Gary.
Gibney, Sinéad.
Gogarty, Paul Nicholas.
Gould, Thomas.
Graves, Ann.
Guirke, Johnny.
Hayes, Eoin.
Healy, Seamus.
Hearne, Rory.
Kelly, Alan.
Kenny, Eoghan.
Kenny, Martin.
Kerrane, Claire.
Lawlor, George.
Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
McGettigan, Donna.
Murphy, Paul.
Mythen, Johnny.
Nash, Ged.
Newsome Drennan, Natasha.
Ní Raghallaigh, Shónagh.
O'Callaghan, Cian.
O'Donoghue, Robert.
O'Gorman, Roderic.
O'Hara, Louis.
O'Reilly, Louise.
O'Rourke, Darren.
Ó Broin, Eoin.
Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Ó Súilleabháin, Fionntán.
Quaide, Liam.
Quinlivan, Maurice.
Rice, Pádraig.
Sheehan, Conor.
Sherlock, Marie.
Smith, Duncan.
Stanley, Brian.
Wall, Mark.
Ward, Charles.
Ward, Mark.
Whitmore, Jennifer.

Staon

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Mary Butler and Emer Currie; Níl, Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett and Paul Murphy.

Question declared carried.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 6 Oct 2026