§ 70. Mr. WESTasked the Chancellor of the Exchquer, seeing that taxpayers with incomes of £50,000 a year are left with a deficit of £3,000 after paying all taxes and insurances, while taxpayers with in-
Mr. TAYLORIs it comparative?—[Interruption.]—May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the courtesy of a reply.
§ Mr. SPEAKERSir Cooper Rawson!
§ Following is the tabular statement:
§ comes of £25,000 after paying similar charges have a surplus of 4,000, whether he will, for the advantage both of the individual and of the State, impose a levy of 50 per cent. on all estates with incomes of £50,000 or over annually?
§ Mr. P. SNOWDENThere must be some flaw in the hon. Member's argument, which seems to reach the absurd conclusion that it is possible to charge the taxpayer less and to collect more from him for the Exchequer.
§ Mr. WESTIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, according to the figures given by him in this House six or eight days ago, a deficit of £3,000 a year on incomes of £50,000 a year would, if the incomes were reduced to £25,000 a year, pay a surplus of £4,000 to the taxpayer?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThat is an exact repetition of the hon. Member's question on the Paper, which I described as reaching an absurd conclusion.
§ Mr. WESTIf the right hon. Gentleman now believes that these figures are an absurdity, why did he give them a week ago when he knew they were absurd?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe figures that I gave are perfectly correct; the absurdity arises from the construction which the hon. Gentleman puts upon them.