Vol. 255 No. 4
asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware of the great hardship imposed upon workers by the large lump sum deductions of income tax at the end of the June quarter which resulted from a change in the income tax code as announced in the Budget; and if arrangements will be made to have any increased income tax liabilities collected in such a way as not to impose hardship.
15.
asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that the Revenue Commissioners made deductions of large amounts from single persons' wages in the week ended 26th June because of the increase of income tax announced in this year's Budget; and that consequently hardship was caused in many cases; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
16.
asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that many wage and salary earners had substantial tax deductions made within the past fortnight from their earnings; if he is in a position to state how many taxpayers were involved and the amount of tax collected in this manner; and why arrangements were not made to have large deductions paid in instalments.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 15 and 16 together.
I am not aware of any large lump sum deductions of income tax at the end of the June quarter as a result of a change in the income tax code announced in the Budget. Where additional liability to tax arises in any case as a result of the withdrawal of the reduced rate relief the increased weekly deduction could not be more than 22½p so that up to the end of the June quarter the maximum arrears could not exceed £2.93. If large deductions were made from some employees, there must have been factors involved other than the withdrawal of reduced rate relief.
If the Deputy is aware of any case in which hardship is complained of I shall be glad to have it examined.
Is the Minister aware that in cases where employees had deductions of up to £3 made from their wages, the imposition of a further £3 deduction means that now there is a very heavy deduction made?
That is not the nature of the complaint that has been made.
Of course it is.
The complaint was that large sums were being deducted in a lump sum.
Is the Minister not aware that people who have been liable to deductions of £3 per week in the normal way now have a further £3 deducted, making a total of £6 per week? Does the Minister not agree that this is a large sum out of the worker's wages?
The position is that if a person has that kind of difficulty whereby hardship is involved he can arrange to have the deduction spread.
What happens is that the deductions are made before the worker realises it.
Is the Minister aware that a considerable amount of wages was deducted in the week ended 26th June, as I stated in my question, due to charging the standard rate of tax on the first £100 of taxable income? It led to considerable hardship for many people that it was all taken off at the one time. The Minister should have arranged that that tax would be paid over a period. The way it was done was Civil Service mania.
The Deputy is still referring to a deduction not exceeding £2.93.
I am speaking in terms of deductions up to £6 and £7——
Then he is speaking about something else.
——as a result of the Civil Service laying down a law which is stupid.
He is speaking about something other than what is mentioned in the question.
17.
asked the Minister for Finance the number of people affected by the change in the income tax code announced in the Budget; and the average increase in income tax liabilities as a result of the change.
It is not possible at this juncture to estimate the number of individuals called upon, in consequence of the abolition of reduced rate relief, to meet increased liabilities for the current year or the average amount of such increase as the basic statistical information required for this purpose will not become available until some time after the end of the year. However, the maximum additional burden imposed on any taxpayer in this category for the year will be £11.66 or on average less than £1 a month.
I would remind the Deputy that the abolition of reduced rate relief was accompanied by increases in the minimum allowances for purposes of earned income relief, age relief and small income relief, the effect of which was to remove an estimated 20,000 taxpayers from the income tax net and to reduce the tax liabilities for the current year of other taxpayers—provisionally estimated at 40,000—in the lower income brackets.
Would the Minister agree that in his Budget speech he said the reliefs which were being given would amount to approximately £2 million and the amount of additional taxation which would be collected as a result of the change was £6 million? Is it not easy enough for any of us to estimate that the number affected, therefore, is three times as many?
No, and I think the figures were £6 million and £1 million, speaking from recollection.
Which makes it worse. I thought it was six and two.
How very accurate we have become that we cannot make any calculations. I notice that whenever the Minister is asked a question of this sort about how many income tax payers are in the net or out of the net he is never able to give an answer at all, although any child who knows arithmetic could calculate the numbers, provided he did not want to get it to five places of decimals.
It is very interesting to know that Deputy O'Donovan and any child can calculate this considering the difficulties involved in obtaining the details of every taxpayer's income.
Come off it. The Minister must think we are children in this House and that he can throw any rubbish to us.
