Tairgim go ndéantar an Bille Airgeadais, 1942, do léigheamh don dara huair. Níl an fhaid chéanna sa Bhille i mbliana ná an oiread céanna cúise conspóide—tá súil agam—agus do bhí le tamall de bhlianta anuas. Mar is léir ón teideal fada is Bille é chun diúitéthe áirithe ioncuim dúithche d'éileamh agus do ghearradh, chun an dlí bhaineas le custuim agus ioncum dúithche (maraon le mál) do leasú, agus chun tuilleadh forálacha i dtaobh airgeadais do dhéanamh. Bhí an chuid is mó dá bhfuil sa Bhille ar eolas ag na Teachtaí sara bhfuaireadar in aon chor é mar isé cuspóir an Bhille éifeacht do thabhairt in aghaidh na bliana airgeadais ar fad do na rúin le n-ar ghlac an Dáil tar éis na Cáinfhaisnéise. Os rud é nár gearradh aon chánacha nua le Cáinfhaisnéis na bliana so ní déantar leis an mBille seo ach na cánacha atá ann cheana do bhuanú. O thaobh lucht íoctha cánach de isé cuid is tábhachtaighe den Bhille an chuid sin de a bhaineann le Cáin Bhrabúis Chorpráide agus níl ansan féin ach maolú áirithe dá dhéanamh i gcásanna ina bhfuarthas an dlí, mar atá sé in Acht Airgeadais na bliana anuiridh, do bheith ró-dhian.
The main purpose of this Bill is to give continuing effect to the taxes and duties embodied in the Financial Resolutions which have been passed by Dáil Eireann following the Budget. As Deputies are aware, the Resolutions have statutory effect for only a limited period under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927. In fact, all or nearly all the important provisions of this Bill have either been the subject of Financial Resolutions or have been referred to in my Budget speech. They have, therefore, been debated already at considerable length. In the circumstances, it is hardly necessary for me to give a very detailed analysis of the Bill at this stage. Should Deputies require elucidation of particular points they will have an opportunity of raising them on the Committee Stage.
I might, however, be permitted to refer again to one or two of the major issues that were discussed in the debates following the Budget. As on previous similar occasions, amongst the matters within the province of the Minister for Finance to which prominence was given were the growing volume of Government expenditure and the question of borrowing to meet deficits.
Looking first at the recent trend of Government expenditure. I find that this subject is one of the war-horses mounted on every possible occasion by Deputies in certain parts of the House. Just as often as that matter was raised I have been at considerable pains to demonstrate the reasons for the expansion which for 1942-43 has reached a figure of £44,270,000. I have even had on occasion to remind Deputies that there is a war on and that, even though we are neutral, this country has been involved in financial outlay which may be directly traced to necessities arising out of the war-time conditions obtaining elsewhere. I refer in particular to the large block of expenditure under the headings of military and civilian defensive measures, special employment schemes, supplies, damage to property and personal injuries, which run up to a total of something between £10,000,000 and £11,000,000. Apart from these specific war-time additions to the tax burden there is also the general rise in prices and cost of living, which have, naturally, brought in their train an unavoidable increase in the cost of government. Added to all that, expanding social services and the fact that the State services are mainly staffed by young people on rising incremental scales of pay have also helped to swell costs.
Taxed on the one hand with squandermania, the Government has yet been reproached on the other with the alleged niggardliness of its provision for the relief of distress and for social services generally. While it is true that only one new large-scale benefit has been introduced under this year's Budget, I would point out that the existing social services, many of them of most generous proportions, are being fully maintained and, in cases, expanded,
Despite whatever may have been said to the contrary in this House, I am satisfied that the recent Budget, which refrained from imposing any additional taxation, evoked generally a lively sense of relief. I do not presume to claim more for it than that, since the times are not such as would enable any Minister for Finance to introduce a Budget which could aspire to more positive signs of popular acclaim. Criticism has, of course, been voiced in some quarters on the decision to resort to further borrowing, whereas in others the procedure has been welcomed. While I deprecate the circumstances in which borrowing seems to be the better part, I feel that if borrow we must the conditions of the present day are reasonably favourable for the purpose. We must admit that these are exceptional times in which it is necessary to follow exceptional courses if we are to keep the ship of State afloat. Even economic purists would agree that conditions in which there is a general slowing down of the economic machine—conditions just such as we, for reasons outside our control, are experiencing at the moment—are those which justify an unbalanced Budget. Furthermore, our credit is sound and money is cheap. Our position being thus I submit that borrowing will prove a lesser evil than that of adding further to the existing load of taxation. It must be remembered, when all is said and done, that the deficit for which I have budgeted is roughly only 12 per cent. of the revenue I hope to receive, namely, £38,365,000, and that side by side with the new debt created from time to time the process of extinguishing old debt still goes on, though, of course, the pace of extinction is not so rapid.
At all events, there is no gainsaying the fact that the deficit is there and since it cannot be liquidated by any magic known to me, the most that we can do is hope that, in the event, it will not prove to be of the dimensions now predicted. Always assuming that revenue will come in on the basis estimated it is not beyond the realm of possibility that last year's experience of a diminished deficit will be repeated. Deputies will recall that last year after the various post-Budget adjustments which had to be made following tax concessions, we anticipated a deficit of approximately £4,542,000. At the end of the year we found that the actual deficit had shrunk to the much more comfortable figure of £2,697,000.
The financial reckoning which we have to meet is, as I have mentioned, of the order of £44,000,000, and I trust it will not be necessary to increase this sum appreciably by Supplementary Estimates in the course of the year. There has been criticism of the volume of Supplementaries introduced last year, and I may say that I yield to no one in my dislike of such additions, not least because of their upsetting effect upon my budgetary calculations. It should be appreciated, however, that especially at present the requirements of government often change from day to day and the Minister for Finance, being a realist, cannot allow services to be starved merely in order to keep within the bounds of Estimates framed many months, perhaps, before the expenditure is incurred. Deputies may, however, rest assured that when preparing their Estimates the Departments concerned endeavour to include therein all the charges that can reasonably be foreseen at the time and for which provision may properly be made in accordance with the canons of Government finance. Such Supplementaries as may prove unavoidable in a financial year receive in my Department the most careful scrutiny as to their necessity and amount before they are presented to Dáil Eireann.
After these introductory general remarks, I now propose to deal briefly with the individual sections of the Bill: Section 1 (which corresponds to No. 1 of the Financial Resolutions passed on Budget day) is the customary "charging" provision for income-tax and surtax imposing those taxes for the current year and securing the continuance of relevant enactments. It will be observed, however, that as compared with other years, there is an amplification in the form of the section. The necessity for this amplification arises from the reimposition of excess surtax which is to be charged for the year 1942-43 at the same rate as that for 1941-42.
Section 2 (corresponding to Financial Resolution No. 2) is designed to combat a device whereby in certain trades which afford an opportunity for holding stocks for appreciation the trade is discontinued and the trading stock which has appreciated in value is disposed of in such a manner that the profits on appreciation escape the income-tax net. Section 3 deals with the special case of a trader erecting buildings or installing new machinery to produce, by means of a process which in normal conditions would not be economic and, therefore, not feasible, a commodity at present— having regard to a shortage of supplies arising out of the emergency— urgently needed in the country. The effect of the section is to secure that, by special allowances year by year, the ultimate loss to the company when the particular use of the machinery or buildings ceases to be commercially profitable shall be set off against the tax liability.