Unfortunately, as Deputy Cunningham might know, CIE do not get out early enough in the morning to get a building worker on the job at 8 a.m. Even if they did, they would leave him somewhere in town from whence he might have to get another one or two buses to take him to the site. If the worker does not turn up until dinner time he will lose a substantial portion of his day's pay. Those people are treated as if they are living beside the job and have not any expenses.
The extraordinary thing about it— and this is the point I was developing when the debate adjourned yesterday evening—is that if the man who owns the whole building firm—the man for whom the person I have been speaking of is working—lives beside the builder's labourer or the carpenter or whatever he might be and does not get up until 10 a.m. drives to his office, drives to the same building site and drives home again, he can claim a tax free allowance for his car. Indeed, while the man on the site will have to do with the flask of tea and the few sandwiches, the owner of the building firm can bring not alone himself but his pals out on a business lunch or a business dinner and can claim that for tax purposes also. This may amount to more, every day of the week, than the unfortunate workman is getting for his whole week's work. I think there is something very unfair there.
I am giving the extreme case of the man who travels 30 or 40 miles to his work. We can come back to the man who has to travel four or five miles to his work. If he is not strong or if he is getting on in years or if, for any of a number of reasons, he uses motor transport, he is refused a tax free allowance or any allowance at all in respect of the vehicle he is using. When introducing the first Budget of this year—we have had another Budget since then and it seems an awfully long time ago—the Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, explained that because I was referring to this point so often he thought mention should be made of it. His argument for not giving an allowance was that it would upset the whole set-up, that it would mean that something would have to be done which would cost a lot and, according to him, would give very little relief to the people concerned.
As in the case of the Minister for Labour last night, the Minister for Finance may consider seven shillings in the £ on every £ over £6 10s per week for a single man and over £10 10s per week for a married man with no family, not very much. Maybe he considers that £3 a week is not very much but it is an awful lot to a man who is working on a job—and getting overtime maybe now and then—which is not a permanent job. It means that if he is laid-off at any time during the year, as he well may be, he will have to live on social assistance until he gets another job.
The whole approach of the State towards income tax allowances is wrong. This is typified by the cases I have instanced. It is also typified by the approach of the Government to old age pensioners. If a man works until he is 65 and maybe, as happens in many cases, pays into a pension scheme and, at the end of his working life retires at 65 years of age with a small pension, he is entitled to draw unemployment benefit for himself and his wife and his children until he is 70 years of age and there is no question of income tax being deducted. However, as soon as he reaches 70 years of age and he transfers from unemployment benefit to his contributory old age pension, he must immediately fill up a form and he is liable for income tax on every shilling earned over £6 10s if he is single and £10 10s a week if he is married.
Maybe the State considers that a man of 70 years of age requires less to keep him. Maybe they think he is no longer of very much use and it does not matter a whole lot if he goes hungry. If we apply this to the State itself, there would be very big changes in the Government benches, in the Dáil, and indeed outside it. Apparently, the approach is that, if persons are so poor that they are unable to avail of the services of talented and trained people to fill out their tax forms and if they are unable to pay for advice as to how they should avail of every loophole in the legislation, then they are fair game for the State and for the income tax authorities.
One of the things which really annoys me is the fact that most of those people seem to feel that it is the particular official dealing with their case who is responsible for everything, that it is the official who replies to their form and sends out the tax free allowance who is responsible for the money deducted from their pay packets. It should be explained to everybody who does not understand it that the people responsible for the deductions are the Government and particularly the Minister for Finance who is the man who frames the Budget and who allows or disallows the tax free allowance in general.
This whole question of income tax has changed greatly since PAYE was introduced. Before that there were numerous loopholes and when it was introduced, with the exception of State employees, everybody who was earning a wage or salary was put on PAYE and arrangements were made for a weekly deduction of income tax. I do not know whether it is true but it is alleged when the time comes for the issue of tax free allowances each year there appears to be absolute chaos in some of these tax offices where people are trying to handle a volume of mail which they have no hope of dealing with before the tax year starts. The result is that many people do not get their tax free allowances in time and the employer feels obliged to make a deduction from the entire wage or salary until the allowance arrives. This is something which should be dealt with before the start of another tax year. It is something which the Minister should try to have remedied.
I made representations to him in this House about conditions in this city. A man goes in to fill up a tax form and finds that he is lined up in a double queue with his next door neighbour standing beside him. A shutter is opened and a little girl asks for numerous details about his income and he has to give them in front of his neighbour and other people. This system is all wrong; it is wrong for the people who are providing the information and it is wrong for the people who are getting the information. Strictly speaking, this may not be a matter which is covered by this motion but it is something which should get more attention than it has got.
The Minister assured me that he would make arrangements to ensure more privacy and to have better arrangements generally, particularly in the city offices, but the effort to improve them can only be described as pathetic. We still have the cubicles which put one in mind of former days when a fellow who was looking for drink knocked on a shutter which was opened and if he had the money he was given the drink.
In addition to the case I have made this evening, there are numerous cases of people, mainly in the country districts, where the custom has been that the family stay together in one house and one person is responsible for the upkeep of the house and that person must bring in a week's wages. The income may sustain the man himself, his sister, perhaps, and maybe an aged mother and father. Very often when the parents die the sister remains on as the housekeeper and it seems ridiculous that what happens is exactly the same as what happens in regard to social welfare, that the sister is not reckoned as a dependent relative, the man is treated as a single man and must fill up a tax form and pay on all money received in excess of £6 10s 0d a week. It was increased from £6 5s to £6 10s by simply including the cost of the stamp. Before that they could claim social welfare insurance but now it is included and they do not claim.
This is one of the things which are causing a lot of annoyance and distress. When I am replying to this debate some evening next week I propose to give figures which will show how unfairly this works. In addition, I propose to give figures to show that while over the years the tax free allowance given to a person with the big salary has increased in percentage the allowance given to the person at the bottom of the table is very much less than it was. Deputy Corish moved a motion which was almost similar to this on 22nd February, 1966 and it was debated and, surprisingly enough, it was voted on. The Fianna Fáil Party en bloc voted against it and the motion was defeated. I suggest that when this motion has been debated here, since it is something that is desirable, since it is something with which most of the speakers on the last occasion agreed, including the Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Finance, it should be adopted by the House and the Government should make some effort before the next Budget to have some of the proposals put into operation.
It does not make sense that in 1960-61 the tax free allowance was £6 5s 0d and the average rural wage was about £5 to £5 10s 0d a week and the income, therefore, which could be earned over the ordinary wage, tax free, in overtime was £1 to £1 10s 0d a week, and that in 1968 when the average rural wage is around £10 per week the tax free allowance is still £6 5s. 0d. No amount of juggling with figures by the Acting Minister for Finance or anybody else can alter the fact that a man who is getting a bare subsistence on a wage of £10 per week now has to pay tax on £3 10s 0d to £4. It is not only unfair but it is morally wrong for any Government to carry on as this Government have been and deducting tax from workers who have barely enough to live on.
The last time this matter was discussed a number of points were made, one of which I thought was something which would have been adopted immediately by the Government. It was in a reference to page 17 of the Report of the Commission on Income Taxation where at paragraph 39 they stated:
We recommend that a widowed person should be entitled to the equivalent of the married allowance for the four years following that in which widowhood commences and that, after this time, he or she should be entitled to the unmarried allowance only.
Would the Minister, when he comes to speak, tell us why this perfectly reasonable suggestion has not been adopted? On page 17 there are very convincing arguments in favour of it. I believe this recommendation should have been adopted years ago. There does not seem to be any point in setting up a commission like this while having no intention, apparently, of considering the recommendations of the commission.
This question of income tax will continue to be raised here by us irrespective of whether or not this motion is adopted. Unless we keep prodding the Minister and his Government nothing will be done to improve conditions. The Minister for Finance seems to think that the implementation of these recommendations would cost a great deal of money and necessitate a great deal of change. One of the things that causes a great deal of trouble and one of the reasons why the lower paid worker finds it difficult to claim his full allowance is that the forms, even the most recent type of form is so difficult that the ordinary person simply does not understand what is required. It would almost seem as if these forms are framed in order to trip up the unwary so that they may make mistakes and can then be told: "That is what you said yourself on your form."
Another improvement could be brought about where the tax free allowances is concerned. Duplicate forms are sent with the request that they be filled in quickly so that the following year's allowance can be sent out early. I suggest these should be held until the end of the year when they would have some meaning for those who get them. Usually recipients throw them away or return them saying they have already filled up a form.
With regard to allowances under PAYE, there is no reason why those who have to pay income tax should not pay it on wages or salaries in excess of, and well in excess of, an amount which would keep them in frugal comfort. It is nothing short of disgraceful that sections of the community should be required to pay income tax on money which the State itself admits, because some of the statutory bodies fix the sum, is barely sufficient to keep body and soul together. The Agricultural Wages Board fixed a minimum rate of wages and that wage is taxed. When we see those who do not have to pay income tax, some of whom get away with it on fine fat salaries, it is ridiculous that the unfortunate man on the bottom rung of the ladder should always be asked to pay more than he can afford.
