asked the Minister for Finance the number of persons paying PAYE in the financial years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - PAYE Tax.
6.
(Clare): The numbers of persons effectively liable to income tax under PAYE for 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 are estimated as follows: 1979-80, 707,000; 1980-81, 650,000 (provisional); 1981-82, 688,000 (provisional).
7.
asked the Minister for Finance the steps the Government propose to take to mitigate the impact of PRSI payments on low-paid workers outside the tax net who are not affected by measures that have been announced.
(Clare): As indicated in the Government press statement of 22 April 1982, and my own statement of 23 April, concerning PRSI contributions, the Government decided to ease the burden of the recent increase in PRSI for employees who are liable to pay income tax also on the same income. This was expressly intended as an interim measure pending examination of the forthcoming report of the Commission on Taxation, which will address all aspects of the general system of taxation and PRSI, with special regard to equity. In the interim, I have no further proposals other than those already announced which will, in general, be of assistance to low income families.
Would the Minister not agree, in relation to this matter, that the form in which PRSI relief is given is such that the lower paid you are the less benefit you will get and the better paid you are the more benefit you will get? Will the Minister not agree that this is a further example of not only the Government's lack of concern about the lower paid but, indeed, of a concerted series of measures directed to prevent them from being helped? Will he not agree that it is now a matter of urgency that this Government show some concern for the lower paid? We have now, in the space of five minutes, come across two cases where the Government have acted not only in disregard of these people but against their interests? Would he not consider now taking urgent action in regard to PRSI and in regard to the family income supplement to redress this record——
Hear, hear.
——a record, incidentally, in which he is assisted by Sinn Féin The Workers Party representatives who have joined in this campaign to see that low-paid workers are not given the benefits they would have got had we remained in office.
That is the new Coalition.
(Clare): As was previously stated, the report from the Commission on Taxation which has recently been received is being considered at present by the Government. The whole purpose of this exercise is to bring equity into the PRSI and tax system as we now know them. It is the intention of the Government to look at this group, who number, incidentally, an estimated 44,000. Broken down further, to a substantial extent, single workers would be involved in this 44,000 who would not have benefited from the previous FIS proposals. There would also be an element of married workers on incomes below the income tax threshold as well. The whole purpose of the exercise is to bring equity to the people whom the Deputy is mentioning.
Despite the benefits that he has given to the 44,000 low-paid workers, many of whom are single people, would the Minister not agree that the 20,000 low-paid workers with families whom he deprives of the family income supplement must represent the majority of low-paid workers with families and that he has, in fact, discriminated against the great majority of these by removing this supplement? Is that not the logical consequence of the figures which the Minister has just given?
(Clare): The Deputy has already been told that, as requested, I will bring the matter of the 20,000 low-paid people to the attention of the Minister for Finance.
Is the Minister aware that that matter was brought to his attention during the general election campaign and he paid no attention to it then? Arising from his reply in which he made reference to the Commission on Taxation whose report the Government now have, when does he propose to lay that report before the House at whose expense it was prepared and who have, I would have thought, every right to see the recommendations without delay?
(Clare): I will arrange to have the Deputy informed of that date.
Does the Minister not consider that his responsibility is to this House and not to me personally? In view of the fact that he has cited this report as an excuse for not answering a question, he should tell this House when he proposes to lay this report before the House.
(Clare): As I have said, it is being considered by the Government at present.
Is the Minister under any obligation to announce decisions on the report before laying it before the House? Is it not the case that he is quite capable of laying the report before the House in advance of Government decisions?
(Clare): It is being considered by the Government. With regard to laying it before the House, I will arrange to have the Deputy informed.
Surely the Minister means he will arrange for the House to be informed.
May we take it that the report which appeared in the newspapers over the weekend that all farmers from now on will have to pay income tax is correct?
(Clare): I have not seen that report.
I am surprised.
The Taoiseach assured us that the Minister of State would be able to answer all questions put to him which the Minister for Finance would have been able to answer. He is now telling us us that he cannot because he is not a member of the Government. This validates our criticism at the beginning that the Minister for Finance should be here.
The Minister of State said he did not see the report.
The Minister for Finance has seen it.
(Clare): I have not seen the report.
Your Minister has.
(Clare): I cannot say if he has.
If the Minister for Finance was here he could have answered. If it is before the Government he must have seen it.
Has the Minister seen the newspaper report?
(Clare): No.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling Question No. 8.