As an amendment to that resolution I wish to move:—To insert after the words "Saorstát Eireann" in clause (a) the words, "save that the rates of Customs duty upon sugar shall be reduced by four shillings and eight pence per hundredweight."
The amendment I have moved is an endeavour to persuade the Dáil that the duty on sugar should be reduced by a sum which will be quite insufficient to meet the arguments I intend to adduce, but will, at least, give the Dáil an opportunity of indicating its intention in regard to taxation of the poor. The intention of the amendment is to secure that the duty on sugar shall be reduced by a ½d. per lb. of sugar. I have already said that one can find no great fault with the Government in not making any attempt at a wholesale radical change in fiscal policy at this stage. I do not withdraw from that. Nevertheless, I believe that the taking over of the whole scheme of taxation, as has prevailed during the last year, is not going to fit in with the requirements of the country.
I draw attention again to the fact that the duty on sugar of 25s. 8d. per cwt. is too great a burden upon the poor people of the country. It will be news to many to learn that the duty on sugar has multiplied fourteen times since the year 1914, from 1s. 10d. per cwt. to 25s. 8d. per cwt. 2¾d. per lb. on sugar is, in my view, altogether unwarranted, because of the fact that it is an imposition upon the very poorest of the population, leading to a taxation upon the earnings of those poor that is quite indefensible. The Minister for Finance, when we were discussing the incidence of the tea tax, made light of the amount by pointing out the small effect it had on the annual expenditure of a family. I think he said about 1d. per week per person, and he reckoned that was not a weight that could not be borne.
We have in the case of the sugar tax an expenditure of probably 1s. 6d. to 2s. per week per average family. I want to draw attention to the results of this kind of taxation upon the necessary food of the people, and the unfair incidence of that tax. I suppose it would not be an exaggeration to say that half the population of the Saorstát is living on a standard of, say, about 30s., or less than 30s. per week.
When we recollect that amongst the agricultural population we have 56 per cent. of all the holdings under 20 acres, I think I am not exaggerating when I say that the standard of life is only 30s. per week. Adding to that very large portion of the population, the large sections which are not holders of agricultural land, but are labourers working on small wages, intermittent wages, it is no exaggeration to say that half the population is living on a family wage of probably not more than 30s. a week. The effect of this imposition of 2¾d. per lb. on sugar is to tax those families, as I said, quite out of all proportion to their ability to pay. I reckon that the tax upon what may be called necessaries— food, tea, sugar, tobacco, and other foods, which are involved in that taxation—roughly runs, in the case of the 30s. per week family, to 3s., or one-tenth of their income.
I lay down that the principle we should follow in respect of taxation is that it should not leave the taxpayer in a position of destitution. It should be so modulated as to leave the citizen with a sufficiency to lead a reasonable life according to civilised standards. When by the imposition of a tax on food, such as this, and other food taxes, we are taking from the population of poor people so large a proportion of the total tax, we are depriving many of those of a reasonable standard of life. I find that of the total taxation that is proposed to be imposed upon the citizens of the Saorstat for the coming year, one-ninth of the whole of the taxation that is to be imposed upon the population is to be derived from sugar. The equivalent proportion in Britain this year is one-twentieth. I find that the proportion of the taxation imposed by Customs and Excise, and drawn from food and drink of non-alcoholic nature is rather slightly less than one-fourth, and I say that the effect of that is to throw too great a burden upon the very poor. We are not leaving those who live upon the margin of subsistence a sufficient amount to enable them to carry on life reasonably. I submit that our purpose in imposing taxation is to enable the State, the community in its organised capacity, to protect and assist and serve the general body of citizens, but that if we impose taxation of such a nature as to deprive the citizens of the possibility of decency, then we are reducing the strength of the State, reducing the power of the State, because of the fact that we are cutting away the strength of the individual who constitutes the unit of the State.
I have heard that it is useless to make any suggestion of reduction in taxation unless one is prepared to put forward a counter proposition. I do not accept the view that that is the business of a critic who has no means of knowledge available. It is not a duty imposed upon the critic to provide a counter policy, but I am going to venture to suggest that it would be worth while the time of the Minister for Finance to examine what is done in other countries, and to realise that such an exorbitant charge as he proposes to impose upon the poor of this country is out of all reason as compared with similar charges in other countries. We have taken over the scheme of taxation that has hitherto been operating, and in this resolution we are proposing to continue all the duties except those which the Dáil has already agreed to allow to be re-imposed. I submit, again repeating what I have said before, that the proportion of the total taxation which is placed upon the poor through the tax upon necessary foods, is unfair and over-burdening.
I have had an opportunity of making some comparisons with a country which is somewhat similar in many respects to the Saorstát—I mean New Zealand—a country with only one-third of our population, but dependent, as Ireland is, very largely for its trade and income on the export of agricultural produce to Great Britain. True, it is a new country, and has advantages, perhaps, of a soil which has not been overworked, but it is depending upon agriculture and upon pasture and the export of dairy produce. The total taxation of New Zealand for the year 1921 was very nearly the same as the proposed taxation of the Saorstát in the coming year. The total was £22,000,000, but out of that £22,000,000 only 39 per cent., or £8,750,000, was raised by Customs and Excise duties. We propose to raise 75 per cent. by Customs and Excise duties, but we are making the mistake, I suggest, of making these Customs and Excise duties fall to too great an extent upon necessary foods. In New Zealand, out of their £8,750,000 derived from Customs and Excise, only one-twentieth is so derived from food and non-alcoholic drink. We propose to take one-fifth. They took as a proportion of Customs and Excise duties one-tenth from tobacco and alcoholic drinks. We propose to take one-half. They took £2,500,000 out of £8,750,000 by taxes upon manufactured clothing, textiles; as much as they take from alcohol and tobacco. I want to draw particular attention to these facts: that out of the £22,000,000 derived from taxation of all kinds in New Zealand 50 per cent. of it was derived from duties upon incomes, death duties and unimproved land tax, only 39 per cent. coming from Customs and Excise and the remainder coming from taxes upon the wealthy and the better off. Our proportions are 75 per cent of the total taxation coming from Customs and Excise and 25 per cent. only taxes upon incomes and property. A very interesting suggestion might be made, I think, to the Minister, which will perhaps forestall his reply, when he will challenge where we are going to get the £400,000 that would be lost, or shall I say saved by the people, but lost to the Exchequer by the adoption of the amendment. I think, without prejudice to the main question of tariffs for protective purposes, the Minister might well think over the proposition, between now and say October, that he should adopt a primage duty which the New Zealand Government has imposed upon all imports— a primage duty of one per cent. ad valorem. Supposing the Minister decided that a primage duty upon all imports, including raw materials, flour and wheat, would be too large an order, though it would bring in £1,000,000 or more, he might say a one per cent. duty upon manufactured goods in the nature of a toll—not a protective tax—that would bring in the amount I propose should be remitted from the sugar tax.
I suggest that we have got to face this question of the incidence of taxation and to make up our minds that the policy of levying so great a proportion of the taxation of the country upon food stuffs— breakfast table duties, as they are called —and upon alcohol and tobacco, which is much more defensible, but that the policy of levying all the revenue and taxation upon these three or four items is fraught with great danger. The taxation upon beer in the proportion we have it practically compels the Finance Minister to say, "You must slow down any temperance movement, you must not encourage or proceed with a demand for a smaller consumption of alcoholic drink, because it will hurt the Exchequer." If that proposition is agreed to, then it is necessary for the Minister in charge of Finances to look around for other means of raising revenue. I believe that we will be forced by the circumstances of the country to raise revenue by taxes on imports. We might also be compelled —but this is not exactly a revenue proposition—to utilise that same machinery for assisting the development of industries of one kind or another at home. I am dealing at the moment with the collection of revenue, and I suggest it is worth the Minister's while to examine the proposition that revenue could be derived without imposing any considerable charge upon the consuming public by a toll upon imports, particularly imports of manufactured articles, and thus relieve the direct tax which food duties impose upon the poorest of the population.
The amendment which I am moving is to reduce the tax upon sugar by a ½d. per lb., and I suppose we may reckon that that would cost the Exchequer something like £400,000 in the year. I suggest, as a means of retrieving that loss, that for six months of the year we could raise the amount by means of such a toll upon imports as I have suggested, and for the remaining six months the Minister would be able to pursue his enquiries as to the general question of all taxation for protective purposes upon imports or upon manufactured articles of one kind and another.
As I have said, this ½d. per lb. is quite too small to meet the case that could be put up for a reduction on the sugar duty, but at least it will be an indication that the Dáil has some consideration for the very poor, and does not desire to retain over-taxation upon that section of the population which is living on the minimum standard of subsistence.
