This tax in practice has been defended, and courageously defended, by Deputy Donnelly on the plea that you must find money to carry on the Government policy. "Money and cash" was the phrase he used. That is what we heard also from Deputy Davin. The defence of Deputy Donnelly was: "If you want our policy you must pay for it." The Labour Party wants that policy and the answer of Deputy Donnelly is: "Well then you will have to pay for it." There is no use pretending that the Labour Party can get out of its responsibility for the tax on sugar or for any other of the new taxes. It is mere pretence on their part trying to do so. No one who listened to the speech of the leader of the Labour Party will see this. There was some attack in Deputy Davin's speech on this particular matter, but there was none in the speech of Deputy Norton except the announcement that he was going to vote against it. I will give Deputy Davin credit for this: that he attempted at least to attack this Resolution, but his leader certainly did not. This is a Resolution which has been supported definitely and clearly by one of the rank and file of the Government Party. But I will say this that when this Government tax came on it was applauded by the Fianna Fáil Party and I think Deputy Donnelly quite correctly represents their views and those of their allies of the Labour Party in practice though not in act.
Tax after tax has been put upon the people until it has become practically impossible any longer to bear them. There have been increases year after year, not merely in direct taxation but in indirect taxation of various kinds. This is one of them. This tax on sugar hits everybody. Yet it is one of the taxes that have the support of the combined Government Party. Take the breakfast table of any person in this country, be he rich or poor, workman or man without work. Is there a single article on that table that he has not to pay a tax on? He has to pay on his tea, sugar, butter, knives and forks and on the table itself. He has to pay on the rasher that he occasionally gets on a morning. Sugar is one of the most common and one of the most important factors in the food of children. The Minister for Finance apparently cannot understand that, when imposing additional taxes of this kind, such as that on sugar, the thing that ought to be taken into account is the taxes that have already to be met by the people. That is what should be taken into account by those who support the Government. It should be borne in mind that the people have not only to pay these taxes on the necessaries of life but they have to pay taxes on everything they wear, on the table they eat off, on the knives and forks they use—all these matters should be taken into calculation before additional taxes in the shape of imposts on tea and sugar are put on. Nothing is more relevant to this issue than the taxable capacity of the people, and the taxes they are already paying. It is this Government, with the full support of the Labour Party, that is responsible for the policy that has made these taxes necessary, according to the Minister. It is absurd and ridiculous to give general support —I think the words are—to the economic, social and political policy of that Party and then refuse to face the issue. I say this for the Labour Party: that their friends, the Fianna Fáil Party, were against taxation when they were not in office but except for an occasional protest the Labour Party, though not in office, is in favour of taxes. But the Minister has learned that policies are costly. Now he comes here with this particular tax increasing the cost of an article of food that is essential to a large number of people. It is more essential, as the Minister ought to know, to the children of the poor than to any other class of the community, because from sugar they must get the sustenance that cannot reasonably be got by them from any other source. And yet, that is the social policy that is being defended, the general lines of which get unanimous support from the people in all those benches opposite.
All taxation at the moment, with the taxable capacity of the people diminishing year by year and month by month, and with the cost of living rising, is unjustifiable. Despite the statistics that may be quoted by the Minister on the one hand and by Deputy Norton on the other, the ordinary householder knows that the cost of living is rising. With all that, there is no justification for the imposition of any extra taxes, and still less for the increase represented by this tax on sugar and tea. I have no doubt that the colleague of the Minister for Finance—the Minister for Industry and Commerce—who, by his policy, has been responsible for a lot of this indirect taxation, is capable of getting up in this House and proving to us, or at least stating to us with that absolute air of conviction that always characterises his absolute and complete disregard of facts, that this is a contribution to lowering the cost of living. Such a statement as that on his part would be no more ridiculous than other statements of the same kind from him that we have heard in this House.
Deputy Davin is quite right in one respect at all events; that if, by taxes of this kind you send up the cost of living, you are bound to create unrest in the way of demands for higher wages. That is absolutely so. There is no escape from it. I referred to that when speaking on the General Resolution. We are dealing now with the tax on sugar, but the Government has already put heavy taxes on clothes, furniture, butter, bacon and bread. Surely, as a result of that policy the cost of living is bound to go up, and there is bound to be labour discontent. It is bound to react on people who are supposed to be escaping under this Budget, the income tax payers, just as if you make the income tax rate too high it is bound to react on the rest of the community. You cannot increase the general level of taxation in the country and expect that any class will escape from the taxes that you put on. Ultimately, all these taxes will be spread all over the whole community. This tax will directly hit everybody ultimately. I admit that it will be felt more by the poorer classes, but all these taxes are bound to be felt by everybody.
