The Minister has taken the view that the approach embodied in this section, which is to take the husband and wife and minor children as one unit for the purpose of taxation, is the best way to do it. He said it will work, and we know it will work because, as the Minister says, it has been used in the past under the income tax code. However, I do not think the Minister can say the approach we are advocating will not work. He can point out that there are certain anomalies arising such as that if you treat husbands and wives as separate individuals in a case where the husband has all the property and the wife has none, they could be more heavily taxed than in the case of another husband and wife who have the same amount of wealth between them. That is true, but at least it is based on the proposition that each individual is treated the same way, and if an individual has an amount of wealth which goes above the threshold, he or she is taxed accordingly irrespective of his or her marital status.
I think this is a reasonable approach, and of course the consequence of what the Minister is doing is that you could have individuals, for instance, a single person versus a married person, with the same wealth but effectively being taxed differently. I think you should stand on the basis of treating each individual the same way. It is very difficult to stand on the basis of treating each individual the same way. It is very difficult to stand on the basis of treating a married couple as one unit with the consequences of treating more harshly for the purpose of wealth tax the married person and giving more favourable treatment to single persons or to people who are separated.
I believe the Minister can see a great deal of logic in what we are saying but that his basic difficulty is that he feels—and he has referred to this obliquely—that the proposition of treating each individual separately would, as he said, lead to evasion by way of transfer of assets, say, from a husband to a wife so as to keep them both below the threshold. I wonder if this is a realistic approach. What he is saying is that if a husband transfers property to his wife or if a wife transfers property to her husband, this is a purely tax avoidance measure. But if you approach it on the basis that each individual should have the same threshold, say, as provided here in the Bill for a single person, £70,000, then is it really avoidance of tax for a husband who has property and the wife has not, to transfer some of his property to his wife so that they would both be below the £70,000? I would suggest that if the Minister thinks a little bit more deeply about it he will appreciate that it is not tax avoidance and that there is nothing particularly reprehensible about that. The overall impression given by the machinery involved in this section and by the specific wording of it—the reference to the wife instead of the spouse—is at least a Victorian approach, if not, as Deputy Brugha suggested, a feudal approach.
I want to make a final appeal to the Minister—I say "final" because I am not going to drag this out—at least to think about this. I believe we are throwing away here a very valuable opportunity of giving proper recognition to the status of women and, in particular, the status of married women and of recognising the fact that they are entitled to be treated as individuals in their own right and not merely as appendages to their husbands. If this opportunity is grasped, the consequences either for the Exchequer or for the administration of the wealth tax will not be such as to create any great difficulties for the Revenue Commissioners, whereas a considerable amount could be gained in our general approach to the status of women and, in particular, of married women.
I would not expect the Minister to say across the floor of the House that he would adopt this approach, but he did indicate before that he had considered it and he could not see his way to accepting it. I would hope that he would eventually be able to see his way to accepting it. As the section stands it is an affront to all married women in the country in this day and age. The reasons advanced for doing it in the way that is proposed in the section do not justify the treatment of a wife as a mere appendage to the husband and as somebody who is not entitled to equal rights with other women, be they single or separated, or with men who are either single or, indeed, married. The whole thinking behind this is that the husband is the key to the whole problem; he is responsible in the first instance for the wife's tax liability. The thinking is certainly antiquated. We have an opportunity here now to strike a blow, not a very big blow, for the status of women. I think we ought to grasp that opportunity especially in view of the fact that in doing so no major problem is created for the Exchequer.
