Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Dec 1959

Vol. 178 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1959—Financial Resolution.

I move:—

That in accordance with the provisions of any Act of the present session to amend the law relating to income tax (including sur-tax)—

(a) deductions on account of tax which will or may become payable may be required to be made notwithstanding that the relevant assessments have not been made,

(b) the amounts of certain excesses shall be added to income arising from certain offices and employments and tax (including sur-tax) shall be charged accordingly,

(c) subsection (2) of section 18 of the Finance Act, 1920, shall be amended by substituting "three-fourths" for "nine-tenths",

(d) Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1920, subsection (4) of section 3 of the Finance Act, 1932, subsections (1) and (2) of section 4 of the Finance Act, 1952, and subsection (2) of section 1 of the Finance Act, 1959, shall cease to have effect.

As I understand the situation, the Minister has set out in Appendix III of the ‘buff' White Paper the various rates of tax that will be payable by certain classes of people in respect of unearned income. I recently tried to make some comparison between these rates and the rates applicable in other countries. The position about which I wish to obtain some information from the Minister now is that in relation to a married couple with two children. The relevant column is the last column in Appendix III. As far as I can ascertain—I should like the Minister either to confirm or correct me—a married couple in Canada, with two children, earning 4,000 dollars a year would fall within the category equivalent to £1,430. In the category of £1,430, as I calculated from Appendix III, he will now be paying here in Ireland about £159 or £160. I should like the Minister to tell me whether my computation is correct. If it is correct I should like to ask the Minister why it is at that figure when in a similar case in Canada it is only £64. There is virtually £100 more tax to be paid by the married couple with two children in Ireland than in Canada.

In relation to the same income in the United States the tax would be £86 as against £159 or £160, as far as I can compute it. I do not want to take the Minister short, as he has only just taken over this brief, but I am sure in the brief will be found a table showing the rates of tax for a married couple with two children, not merely by the jumps of £250, as are on the White Paper, but approximating to the figures I have mentioned. The position appears to be that the Canadian tax in that case would be £64 and the American tax £86, that is to say, provided that my conversion of $4,000 Canadian is correct at £1,430, that my conversion of $180 Canadian is correct at £64, and my conversion of $240 U.S. is correct at £86.

I am exceedingly puzzled to know what the tax structure in Canada or in the United States has to do with the tax structure in a little country of 2,900,000 persons which is carrying a very large superstructure of social services, very large by comparison with the income of the country. Of course, when one starts talking about American income tax and income tax in Canada, one has to remember that in addition to federal taxes there are also State taxes in the United States and, I think, provincial taxes in Canada, certainly in the United States. I am just wondering what sort of red herring Deputy Sweetman wants to bring into this debate.

He thinks the Minister is a doctor.

I know some members of the Fine Gael Party want to protect one section of the community. Apparently Deputy Norton's dearest friends are the medical profession.

I thought the Minister was going to make total war on them.

I am glad they have at least one champion in this House.

The Minister on the Financial Resolution.

I was saying I really did not see how any Deputy looking at this question realistically could ask me at this hour of the night why the Canadian income tax, assessed upon a married couple with two children in relation to an income of the equivalent of £1,400, is so very much less than the tax paid here. The reason the income tax here is high is that, first of all, there are in general so few income taxpayers, that such a relatively small proportion of the population pay income tax here.

The next point is, as I have already mentioned, that we are carrying a very heavy superstructure of social and other services which would have to be paid for either out of direct taxation or indirectly by tax upon beer and spirits and other commodities which I remember the Deputy wanted very much more lightly taxed. If we tax this excisable liquor or tax tobacco lightly we have to increase the burden on the direct taxpayer. That is perhaps one of the reasons why there is such a marked contrast between the amount of tax borne by the married couple with two children in Canada and the United States and the amount borne here.

There is, however, a much more relevant comparison which the Deputy might have made and that is the amount of tax borne by a married couple with two children here and the amount which a couple in the same circumstances with the same income would bear in Great Britain. The perspective would be very much better if the Deputy would contrast the position here with the position in Great Britain. A married couple with two children would pay under our existing system £128 15s. Under the P.A.Y.E. system, when it is introduced, they will pay £120 4s. 6d. In Great Britain a similar couple with an income of £1,250 would pay £131 7s. 2d. which in any event indicates that they are not better off than our direct taxpayers here. That is the real comparison to make, not with these distant empires across the Atlantic, not with these great world States but with our neighbours in Great Britain and perhaps some of the countries on the Continent. I do not want to go into that now, but that would give the people a very much truer appreciation of what the position is here than trying to draw their attention to what is happening in America and in Canada. The fact is that far-off fields are green, as we know.

Would the Minister, before he comes in to-morrow, make his information more accurate? I think he will find there is no income tax in any province in Canada, certainly outside Ontario and Quebec.

I should like to inquire from the Minister whether he has gone into the circumstances surrounding the case of a married man who would be a very limited wage earner and who would be suffering under the disability and the very heavy financial strain of having a member of his family away in an institution for which he would have to pay a substantial fee per month.

On a point of order, may I direct attention to the terms of the Resolution? The general question which the Deputy is now raising does not arise.

This will affect the P.A.Y.E. men, too.

That would arise on the next Stage. It is not a matter that can be raised on the Financial Resolution.

Surely the Minister may tell us whether he has examined the circumstances surrounding such a case? It is not outside the bounds of possibility that the Minister has had from time to time cases put before him of this nature. If cases of this nature are put before the Minister, particularly when he is drafting new income tax regulations——

I pointed out to the Deputy the matter is not in order at this Stage.

If you rule that the matter is not in order, I must accept your ruling.

Question put and agreed to.
Resolution reported and agreed to.
Top
Share