Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Dec 1989

Vol. 394 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disposable Income.

10.

asked the Minister for Labour whether a married man with four children on the average industrial wage has less disposable income than if he were on long-term unemployment assistance; if, in both cases, he will give the nett amount in hand in each case each week after differential rent or mortgage assistance, PAYE, PRSI, occupational pension contribution, VHI contribution, transport cost to work or the labour exchange and the value annualised weekly of the free fuel allowance; and if he has any proposals to eliminate this poverty trap.

12.

asked the Minister for Labour, in view of his attack on the private sector for not providing more jobs, whether before making those remarks, he considered the total cost to an employer of putting £1 nett with (a) a single employee's wage packet and (b) a married employee's wage packet; if so, if he will give, in the case of both categories, the total amount it would cost an employer, including provision for employer's PRSI and holiday pay to pay the average individual wage gross; and the nett amount this would leave in either weekly pay packet after deducting employee PAYE and PRSI; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 12 together.

Firstly, a married man, on standard tax relief, with four children, earning the average industrial wage of £209.70 per week can expect to take home £158.25 after tax and PRSI; similarly, a married man in receipt of standard benefits with four children, on unemployment assistance would receive about £120.96 per week. As circumstances differ from case to case, any attempt to generalise with regard to other reliefs and benefits could serve only to mislead the House.

If the Deputy wishes to contact me with regard to specific cases then I shall be more than happy to itemise the relief and benefits available in each instance. The deduction mentioned would of course reduce both take home pay and the differential between the disposable income of the two persons mentioned by the Deputy.

As regards the question of wage costs the position is as follows:

(1) Where an employee is on the average industrial wage of £209.70 per week it would cost an employer approximately £2.54 extra for a single employee and £1.87 for a married employee to increase the nett wages by £1 a week, taking account of both marginal tax codes and employers PRSI.

(2) After this increase a single employee on the average industrial wage, without additional tax relief, could expect to take home approximately £141 per week while a married man on the same wage could expect to bring home about £159 per week. It should be borne in mind that these calculations do not take into account additional tax relief available for health cover, life insurance, mortgages and so on; with such relief the nett take-home pay would be significantly greater in each case.

In relation to the question of job creation generally the Government's overall strategy is to create the conditions for employment growth. The effects of this approach are clearly apparent; economic growth of 4 per cent is forecast for this year, inflation is at a very low level historically and is predicted to fall even further next year, manufacturing production has set new records and the live register is at its lowest November level since November 1984.

Over the past three years with job creation and economic recovery uppermost in mind, considerable strides have been made in the reform of the tax system. These strides were made despite the constraints imposed by the difficult budgetary situation inherited in 1987. These constraints still apply, albeit in reduced fashion: current budget deficit of £819 million; one of the highest debt-GNP ratios among developed economies. Nevertheless the Government are committed to this process of reform to ensure that the optimum conditions for continued employment and economic growth prevail.

I am sure the Minister will agree that with emigration at 46,000 a year, the highest in 31 years, and with almost 230,000 people on the unemployment register, the question of creating jobs is the biggest single question facing us at present. Would the Minister not agree that there is a problem in respect of take-home pay? The Minister confined his reply to take-home pay after tax and PRSI. He did not include other essential elements which affect the ability of people on social welfare to take up jobs, such as the differential rent which is £17 a week, the non-availability of medical cards to people on the average industrial wage, as if they got that into their hand, or the fact that they do not get a Christmas bonus or free fuel allowance. When all these things are taken into account, low and all as the figures are for a person on long-term unemployment assistance, the disposable income for a married man, with four children, on the average industrial wage is even higher. Would the Minister agree that this poverty trap is not unusual in this case and that the single biggest step we can take to facilitate job creation is to get rid of that poverty trap? Would the Minister not further agree that apart from substantially reducing income tax in the next budget, one way we could do this is by moving to means testing on nett pay rather than on gross pay as they have done in the United Kingdom?

I agree with the Deputy that the most important issues from an economic point of view are the high levels of unemployment and emigration. I referred to take home pay after tax and PRSI because if I was to do otherwise I would have to look at individual cases. I accept that all long-term unemployed persons and their dependants are entitled to medical cards and butter vouchers, but only 50 per cent would be eligible for fuel vouchers, 25 per cent would be eligible for footwear allowances and only about 3,000 would be eligible for rent supplements. I accept that there are instances where people would be eligible for all those benefits but we have to refer to the individual case.

I agree with the Deputy that if we take the case of a single person on unemployment assistance against that of a single person on the average industrial wage, there is a clear incentive for a person with two dependants to work but if a person has four dependants there is almost no difference in the amount. That is the reality. It is for that reason the Government are committed in the Programme for National Recovery to tackle tax reform particularly in cases like those we are talking about here. Three things have to be done in this regard. We will have to try to bring down the standard rate to 25p — assuming we can get as many people as possible into the standard rate band. We will also have to look at the PAYE allowance or the bands. However, those are matters for the Minister for Finance and he said recently that he hopes to deal with these items further in the next budget which will be introduced in and about six week's time.

May I again appeal for brevity and relevance in order that I may dispose of the other Priority Questions.

I agree with you, a Cheann Comhairle. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the point I made in relation to job creation. The Minister recently berated the private sector for not creating sufficient jobs. I can understand his impatience which is shared by Members on all sides of the House——

The Deputy should put questions on that subject.

Would the Minister accept that one of the reasons for the lack of job creation is contained in the second part of his reply? In order to put £112 — which is what a married man with four children on the average industrial wage gets into his hand after paying rent, etc. — into the packet of an average industrial worker, it costs an employer over £290. This is too costly and is one of the reasons jobs are not flowing as a result of the low inflation and the balance of payments surplus which we have had for the past five years, and which has continued under the present Government.

I want to get on to another question.

I accept that there is a trap that has to be dealt with, but I am not too sure that if we remove that trap employers will automatically get involved in job creation. We will come back to that question later.

What about——

Sorry, Deputy. Question No. 11, please.

——the question of net pay versus gross pay?

Barr
Roinn