I move amendment No. 1:—
1. Before sub-section (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"That an individual who makes, in the manner prescribed by the Income Tax Acts, a claim in that behalf and makes a return in the prescribed form of his total income shall, for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of his assessable income for the purpose of income tax, be allowed a deduction from the amount of that income such sum or sums as he pays in wages to domestic indoor or outdoor employees."
I am sorry that the Minister was not able to help me in arguments with the Revenue Commissioners. Perhaps he would be able to give me the figures later on. However, I am trying to help him now. I have spent some thought on this amendment and I am putting it forward in a non-controversial way, as an honest amendment that will be of social import. It is one that should commend itself to every member of the House. It is to the effect that payers of income-tax would be allowed to deduct from the assessable total of the income such sum or sums as they paid in wages to domestic indoor or outdoor employees. In spite of the assurance of the Minister that income tax payers are suffering no hardships, that the burden he has put on their backs is only a straw, I can assure him that many of those income tax payers— decent, honest citizens who are as much interested in the welfare of the country, in the social uplifting of the country, as any Party, Government, or Opposition in the House—find it a very serious hardship and they will, as Deputy Dillon said, have to tighten their belts this year.
Unfortunately, a private citizen differs from a Government. He has to cut his coat by his cloth. He is not allowed the luxury of a deficit. That is forbidden by his bank account or, in the case of many, by his bank overdraft. He has to look round and deny himself in all directions. I am speaking of people who are in that position, people, as I say, who are trying to do their duty as citizens and yet pay this extra income tax and carry on during a year of emergency, people who only wish to see their country out of trouble and are willing to pull their weight and pull it honestly, but they will have to make curtailments in all directions.
This amendment of mine was designed to relieve them of what would be a very unpleasant prospect for many of them, a curtailment in the way of getting rid of some of their domestic indoor or outdoor employees. I think the last thing a decent man would like to do is to let down a faithful servant, his best friend, but unfortunately many people will be reluctantly obliged to do it this year. I do foresee that unless some relief of this sort is given there will be a very considerable number added to the roll of the unemployed from the field of domestic labour. My amendment is designed to meet such a contingency, and it is one that should commend itself to all Parties in the House, particularly the Labour Party, of which there is one representative present—I mean the official Labour Party. This principle is not a new one. It is a principle which is recognised and has been recognised by all of us in business. What shop or factory, what kind of business could be carried on if it had to pay income tax on money disbursed in the way of wages or salaries? It would be quite impossible. If they were obliged to do that they would find immediately that they would be compelled to face a very thorough reduction of staff or bankruptcy. I do not see any difference between domestic employees and employees in other fields. Domestic service is as honourable, is as essential and as useful to the State as any other form of labour. It is only a Hyde Park orator, as I heard one once, who would refer to domestic servants as instruments and parasites of luxury. I do not think we will hear that in this House. What would be the position in many homes if such employees as domestic servants were not available? One can visualise the Minister for Finance having suddenly to retire in order to prepare the family dinner or, perhaps, put the children to bed. The Dáil could not sit from 3 o'clock until 10.30 were it not for the benevolent industry of this class of employee.
I commend this amendment to the serious consideration of the Minister. I observe he is smiling. It is a smile not of sympathy nor of benevolent neutrality; rather is it a smile of sinister significance. That is the smile he had when he enumerated the various straws that he was laying on the backs of those least able to bear them. The Minister's smile is like the moonlight on a tombstone. I hope that my arguments in favour of this amendment are sinking into the Minister's heart. I am putting them forward seriously, though I may appear to be talking lightly. This is really an important thing and it would be a great concession if the Minister accepts the proposal. I hope the matter will be discussed in a non-party, non-controversial way and ultimately it should be left to an open vote of the House.