It is not usual at this stage to make any general remarks with regard to the Budget statement, but to confine ourselves to the Resolutions to be proposed. I think, whether we agree with the Minister or not in his statement—we certainly do not—it is only right to say that he deserves a personal tribute from the Dáil on his personal record in being so fortunate as being able to bring in his eighth Budget. I think this is his seventh or eighth Budget. Perhaps because of that he has got into a definite Budget groove from which, I suppose, it will be impossible to shift him. I think we may make up our minds that if we are going to change the financial policy of the State we must, first of all, change our Minister for Finance. Just because the Budget might be described as an "as you were" Budget, our criticisms must be largely as they were last year. We have practically no new criticisms to bring forward. Perhaps it was right that the Minister should paint the picture he did. I hope it was not in over-glowing terms. He advised us to strike a note of cheerful optimism, and said that there was good and sufficient reason for it. I, too, would like to strike that note, but at the same time I would be more pleased if we could forget that we had with us still some important social problems that require to be urgently attended to.
In so far as I could judge from the general statement on the Budget, the Minister has no particular intention of dealing with these problems in the drastic way in which I think they should be dealt with. We have the problem of unemployment and the problem of insufficient housing all over the country. Other opportunities will be afforded for dealing with these matters, but personally I would be much more pleased if I saw some attempt on the part of the Minister to recognise that these are two problems that are, as it were, festering sores in our national life, and the Minister should face up to the problem of dealing with them in the drastic manner in which they deserve to be dealt with. As I say, other opportunities will offer for dealing with these matters.
In connection with the three small changes that are made in taxation, I would like to know if there is any assurance that we will get a quid pro quo in the matter of the reduction of the wine duties. It will cost us, I think, £12,000 per annum. That is the estimate of the Minister. I would like if he would explain on the appropriate occasion what we are likely to get in return. I agree with Deputy O'Kelly that it is rather strange that the only remission of taxation should be in that particular direction. It will be a consolation, I am sure, to the labouring man, a docker or a builder's labourer, who is anxious for a reduction in the price of his pint of beer, to know that his champagne will cost him less.
Coming to the Resolution before us in regard to income tax, I would like at the beginning to pay a small tribute to those responsible for making the estimate. I think it is rather creditable to our Revenue Commissioners, the officials of the Department of Finance or the Minister himself, to say that in estimating an amount of almost £4,000,000 they came to within £16,000 of being correct. I think that is something to their credit and while I am not slow to criticise in some respects, I like to give credit where credit is due. In regard to criticisms which have been offered from these benches for the past six or eight years I will only briefly repeat them. I think that it would not be impossible for the Minister so to adjust his income tax that the reliefs which have been asked for from these benches and the Fianna Fáil benches could be given. I believe they could be given if the Minister faced up to the task with the will to do it. I do not agree at all with the principle which he outlined when he said that to create disturbance simply for the purpose of changing the burdens, from one set of people to another, is not desirable. I do not know what is the force of the word "disturbance," whether it is a disturbance of the Minister from the set groove, in which he seems to be. I do not at all agree with the principle that it is not right that burdens should be shifted from the shoulders of one set of people to the shoulders of another set of people, if it is the proper thing to do—that just merely because you do not want to go to the trouble of re-arranging your income tax code it is not to be done. I do not think that is a sound principle and I certainly do not agree with it.
We have the fact that in Great Britain and Northern Ireland the standard rate of income tax is ? higher than here but, at the same time, the smaller income taxpayers are getting very much more relief there than is given to the smaller income taxpayers here. The incidence of the tax is entirely different. For instance, in the case of a married man who has three children and an income of £400, he has to pay £3 7s. 6d. here in the Free State and, although the standard rate is ? higher in Great Britain, a man similarly circumstanced there gets off without paying any income tax.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
A married man here with three children and a £500 income a year pays £10 2s. 6d. income tax; in Great Britain, even under the increased income tax, he gets off with £3 2s. 4d. In fact, on all incomes under £1,000 income tax is lower in Great Britain than in the case of a married man here. As the income reaches £1,000, the tax increases and is higher in Great Britain than here. In the case of a single man, the income tax at the Saorstát rate and the British rate is equal at about £228 income. Above that, it is higher in Britain, and it increases rapidly.
Now we have this position, that in Britain the family man is encouraged; in Ireland the bachelor is encouraged; that is, the effect of the income tax rates. If we look at the census returns, we see that there is a very considerable proportion of bachelors in the Free State, and I think the Minister for Finance will have to answer for that in some measure. His policy has, perhaps, something to do with that. I again raise this point, as it has been raised year after year. Last year I had some hope—this year I have none— that the Minister would mend his hand in that particular direction. Last year we thought we had brought the Minister to the point that he would do something. He had expressed his sympathy the year before. He virtually promised that the relief that we have been pressing for for the family man, and especially the man trying to give higher education to his children, would be given, but he dashed our hopes to the ground last year. Although there was reference to it in the newspapers this year, I felt the temptation to have a Budget "just as you were" would be too great for our present Minister for Finance to withstand. So I am not disappointed in finding things just as they were. Until we can shift the Minister for Finance, I am afraid there will be no possibility of getting the relief we want.