asked the Minister for Finance if he will state, on the assumption that the allowances given to members of Dáil Éireann were reduced at the rate of £250 per annum over the period beginning on 1st April and ending on 31st December, 1969, what the net loss of income, after payment of income tax and sur-tax, would be in the case of a member of Dáil Éireann who was married but had not any dependent children, if in addition to his allowance as a Deputy he had other earned income over that period at the rate per annum of (a) £7,000, (b) £5,000, (c) £2,500, (d) £1,000, (e) £500 and (f) nil.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Deputies' Allowances.
43.
As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to circulate it with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
|
Category and amount of other earned income |
Gross loss of income to member if Dáil Éireann allowance were reduced by £250 a year, from 1st April, 1969 to 31st December, 1969. |
Consequential tax saving to member |
Net loss of income to member (Col. (2) less Col. (3)) |
|||||||
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
|||||||
|
£ |
£ |
s. |
d. |
£ |
s. |
d. |
£ |
s. |
d. |
|
|
(a) |
7,000 |
187 |
10 |
0 |
137 |
15 |
6 |
49 |
14 |
6 |
|
(b) |
5,000 |
187 |
10 |
0 |
109 |
13 |
0 |
77 |
17 |
0 |
|
(c) |
2,500 |
187 |
10 |
0 |
65 |
12 |
6 |
121 |
17 |
6 |
|
(d) |
1,000 |
187 |
10 |
0 |
65 |
12 |
6 |
121 |
17 |
6 |
|
(e) |
500 |
187 |
10 |
0 |
65 |
12 |
6 |
121 |
17 |
6 |
|
(f) |
Nil |
187 |
10 |
0 |
49 |
4 |
5 |
138 |
5 |
7 |
It did not cost the Minister too much money and time in order to get that information—oh, no, it was easy to get that. I asked him a question concerning public finance in which the people of this country are interested but it would cost too much money and time to get the information for me.
The answer to this question involved only a few simple calculations. The answer to the other question the Deputy asked would involve searching the records and going back over long lists of expenditure. This would involve a great deal of public time and expense which, in my opinion would not be justified.
The putting down of this question by "Old Mischief" implies criticism of the Taoiseach.
Whom does the previous one criticise?
If the reply to this question involves only a few simple calculations, has the Minister been given any clue as to why the question was put down?
That is obvious.
On a point of order. Owing to the very exceptional circumstance of an ex-Minister addressing this question to the present Minister for Finance, apparently for the purpose of affronting the present Taoiseach, might I ask the name of the Deputy who asks this question on behalf of Deputy MacEntee who is not present? Who asks this question.
Who puts the bells on the cap?
Come, now.
I ask the question on behalf of Deputy MacEntee.
The little boy.
Good fellow.
44.
asked the Minister for Finance what in his estimation the net gain to the Exchequer would be if the statutory allowances now given to members of the Oireachtas were reduced in the case of each member at the rate of £250 per year over the period beginning on 1st April and ending on 31st December, 1969, due allowance being made for the consequent loss to the revenue under the heads of income tax and sur-tax.
It is estimated that the net gain to the Exchequer would be £28,000, after allowing for the estimated consequential loss to the revenue under the heading of income tax.
It would not be practicable to estimate what the consequential loss of sur-tax would be—the rate of sur-tax would depend in each case on the level of total income from all sources, and it would not be possible, without an examination of the tax files of all the members, to provide a reasonably accurate figure under this heading.