I move:
(1) THAT in this Resolution—"insurable employment" has the meaning assigned to it by section 2 (1) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981 (No. 1 of 1981);
"specified emoluments" means emoluments within the meaning of section 111 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1967 (No. 6 of 1967), which arise to a specified employed contributor from an insurable employment;
"specified employed contributor" means a person who is an employed contributor for the purposes of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, but does not include a person—
(a) who is an employed contributor for those purposes, by reason only of section 65 (1) of that Act,
(b) in whose case section 10 (7) of that Act has effect, or
(c) to whom Article 7 of the Social Welfare (Modifications of Insurance) Regulations, 1979 (S.I. No. 87 of 1979), applies.
(2) THAT, in relation to income tax for the year 1982-83, the following provisions shall have effect—
(a) for the purposes of ascertaining the amount of the income on which an individual (being an individual who is a specified employed contributor) is to be charged to income tax for the year 1982-83 in a case where the total income of the individual for the said year consists of or includes specified emoluments (including in a case where the individual is a husband who is assessed to tax in accordance with the provisions of section 194 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, any specified emoluments of his wife which are deemed to be income of his wife by that section for the purposes referred to in that section)—
(i) a deduction of £312 shall be made from so much, if any, of the specified emoluments (but not including, in the case where the individual is a husband assessed as aforesaid, the specified emoluments, if any, of his wife) as arise to the individual, and
(ii) in the case where the individual is a husband assessed as aforesaid, a deduction of £312 shall be made from so much, if any, of the specified emoluments as arise to his wife,
(b) any deduction to be made under this Resolution from specified emoluments shall be given in priority to any deduction to be made under section 138B of the Income Tax Act, 1967, from those emoluments,
(c) all such provisions of the Income Tax Acts as apply in relation to claims for the deductions specified in section 138 to 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, shall, with any necessary modifications, apply in relation to a claim for a deduction under this Resolution,
(d) except as otherwise expressly provided, a deduction under this Resolution shall be given either by discharge or reduction of the assessment, or by repayment of any excess tax which has been paid, or by all or any of those means, as the case may require.
(3) IT is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
This resolution is required to give effect to the Government decision, announced on 22 April, to provide for a special income tax allowance of £312 in the case of employees liable for the new PRSI contributions at the higher rates. The Revenue Commissioners are advising employers to apply this allowance from this week onwards and it is necessary in the first place to obtain the approval of the Dáil before this arrangement can be put into effect. A corresponding provision to this resolution will be included in the forthcoming Finance Bill.
There have been detailed press statements about the allowance and the reasons the Government have decided to take this action. The PRSI increases which took effect on 6 April were substantial. There was a total increase in employees' contributions of 2¾ percentage points, including 1 per cent on gross income in respect of youth employment. These increases had been well heralded. They formed part of the budget proposals introduced by the previous Minister for Finance on 27 January. The youth employment levy was incorporated in the programme of the previous Government and the necessary legislation for it was enacted in December. Indeed, this programme envisaged a number of other additional charges which would have added very considerably to the overall PRSI contribution if they had been implemented. The Social Welfare Bill, which was passed by this House on 24 March, that is the day before the budget was introduced, provided for the 1¾ percentage point increase additional to the youth employment levy.
The Government, therefore, implemented without change the proposals put forward by the previous Government and these proposals had been widely publicised. In the event, however, many workers felt that the imposition was too severe when they received their first pay packet for April. Unfortunately the problem was compounded because it was not possible to implement from the beginning of the tax year the tax changes announced in the budget. Due to unavoidable administrative delays these changes will not take effect until later this month and, for many taxpayers, they will mean an improvement in their income tax position. Also, many workers had ceased to pay PRSI for some weeks at least because their earnings had exceeded the ceiling for PRSI and consequently they moved in one week from a position of no PRSI deduction to a deduction of 7½ per cent. In these circumstances it was inevitable that there should be widespread dissatisfaction. I should mention at this point that the Government are looking urgently at the possibility of arranging that in future PRSI payments for all workers will be staggered over the full year. There are technical administrative difficulties associated with this and I cannot say at this stage whether a workable solution can be found.
Apart, however, from the combination of factors which gave rise to dissatisfaction, the fact remains that the PRSI as it now stands is quite a severe imposition on the worker with average or low earnings and it is time to re-examine it in depth. As PRSI payments are not allowable as a deduction for the purposes of assessing income tax, it is argued in some quarters that those on PRSI are subject to double taxation. I intend to arrange that the taxation arrangements in respect of PRSI will be investigated in detail in the coming months and this investigation will take account of any recommendations which may be put forward in the first report of the Commission on Taxation. I understand that this report is likely to be available in a few weeks' time. In the meantime the Government have introduced for this year a special allowance of £312 as an interim measure for those who have to pay PRSI at the higher rates.
I should mention that the Government discussed the new PRSI changes with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions before arriving at a decision. The view of congress was that some relief now was essential because of the extra burden that workers were being asked to bear and this view, of course, influenced the Government decision. I am glad to note that in their May Day Declaration, congress have welcomed the special tax allowance and describe it as a significant attempt to ease the burden on workers. I should like to quote what congress had to say on this:
Congress welcomes this easing of the burden on workers. What was done may not have matched the expectations or hopes of some but in the light of the severe budgetary constraints, the reasons for which are by now well-known, a concession costing £45 million in the remainder of this year (£69 million in a full year) does represent a significant attempt to ease the situation, as must be recognised by all who have not lost touch with reality.
For the taxpayer on the standard rate of tax the new allowance is worth over £2 a week in take-home pay. This allowance, together with the income tax changes and social welfare child allowance improvements announced in the budget, will ease the overall tax and PRSI burden for the big majority of workers. A single taxpayer will be better off on weekly earnings up to £128, a married taxpayer up to £228 and a married taxpayer with two children up to £236.
There has been criticism that the new allowance provides no benefit for the lower paid who are liable for PRSI but who are below the income tax thresholds. Let me put this in perspective. Altogether there are approximately 700,000 employees who are paying PRSI at the full rates. Of this total all but an estimated 40,000 pay income tax. While precise details of these 40,000 employees are not available, the indications are that the majority of them are in part-time work and some of these undoubtedly qualify for short-term social welfare benefits.
As the congress declaration pointed out, single persons pay income tax on earnings from £42 a week upwards and married persons on earnings from £85 upwards. There can be very few in fulltime, year-round employment whose earnings are below these thresholds.
The only alternative to a tax allowance was a reduction in the overall PRSI contribution. This in effect would have required a reduction in PRSI payments for the social insurance fund or some cut in the youth employment levy. The employee's contributions to the insurance fund now total 23½ per cent of what is required whereas the State has to make a contribution of 25 per cent and in this situation a reduction in the PRSI proper would hardly be warranted. If this year's increase were withdrawn, then the State would be called upon to make a 38 per cent contribution or else the employer's rate would have to be increased. Some employers are already complaining loudly that the PRSI contribution is too big a burden for them and is acting as a disincentive to employment.
The youth employment levy is a contribution to meet the problem of youth unemployment and it is charged on all workers irrespective of their status. I might remind the Opposition again that this levy was introduced by them when in Government and that they did not provide any special arrangements in this legislation for the lower paid workers in relation to this levy.
As already mentioned, the new allowance will cost £45 million this year in terms of tax foregone. This will have to be made good through expenditure savings and other taxes and I am looking at the possibilities in this area with a view to making recommendations to Government in the near future.
Those who clamour for reductions in PRSI should follow through these demands with proposals for alternative sources of revenue or reductions in public expenditure. As to alternative sources of revenue, the reality is that the scope for extra taxation is limited and it is a myth to suggest that there are large untapped sources which can be called upon to solve all our problems. I agree that the tax net has to be widened and I look forward to the recommendations of the Commission on Taxation in this regard.
The only other course of action is to abandon our commitment to reduce borrowing for day-to-day expenses and allow the current budget deficit to rise. I think the House in general would agree with me that this policy would be extremely short-sighted.
There is one other issue that I should like to deal with at this point. There has been considerable criticism at the decision to narrow the 35 per cent tax band from £4,500 to £3,000 for single persons and from £9,000 to £6,000 for married persons. This criticism is based on a misconception of the tax package which I announced in my budget of 25 March. This package was carefully designed to achieve the same effect for individual taxpayers as the January proposals which were based on a tax credit system. Thus, while the 35 per cent band was narrowed, the personal allowances were increased very substantially and this factor is not taken into account at all by those who want to widen the band again.
The allowance provided for in this resolution is an interim measure for the current tax year. We have to look carefully at the whole PRSI structure and its link with the income tax system and devise arrangements which are demonstrably fair and which distribute the overall burden of taxation as equitably as possible. This is a difficult issue and it could not be resolved at short notice in response to an immediate problem. The special allowance is the short-term response. It should be a most welcome change for those who must pay PRSI at the full rates and I commend to the House the resolution which will bring it into effect.