§ 44. Mr. RENDALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the result of the Budget pro- 2379 posal to tax salaried persons on their estimated incomes is to make many of them pay on their highest year's income, whilst the rest of the community, in preferring their three years' average income, get the advantage of past lean years; and whether, seeing that an employé earning £145 in 1919, £250 in 1920, and £400 in 1921, under the existing law would pay £15 11s. 3d. tax, whilst if his salary has now been increased to £500 a year he will, under the new proposal, be compelled to pay, even at the reduced rate of tax, £50 12s. 6d., he will reconsider this proposal?
§ Sir R. HORNEThere has hitherto been a serious want of uniformity in the treatment of various classes of employés—some being assessed on the three years' average and others upon the emoluments of the year. The effect of the proposal to which my hon. Friend refers is to remove this anomaly and to provide one common basis of assessment for all employés, namely, the amount of the emoluments of the year of assessment. I would remind my hon. Friend that emoluments generally are now falling, so that the class of employés as a whole will gain by the change; it is only in a minority of the cases that there will be an increased charge of tax, and even in these cases it must be remembered that in past years the persons concerned have almost always paid tax on less than their actual earnings under the three years' average method of assessment, while other employés have been assessed annually on their earnings of the year.
§ 45. Mr. RAFFANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received representations as to the position of unmarried sons who are the sole support of homes and maintain their fathers or mothers, and therefore consider that they are entitled to the same abatement of Income Tax as is given to married men in respect of their wives; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
§ Sir R. HORNEAn Income Tax allowance is already granted under existing law to an unmarried son who is the sole support of an incapacitated father or widowed mother. I see no sufficient ground, however, why that 2380 allowance should be assimilated in amount to that granted to the married man.