§ 55. Sir T. Mooreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reduction in Income Tax it is estimated could be effected by cancelling the existing subsidies on rationed foods, and what would be the increased cost per head of the population annually for such foods should the subsidy be withdrawn.
§ 66. Mr. Lipsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what addition to the weekly household budget of a family consisting of wife, husband and two children would follow the abolition of the subsidies on food.
§ Mr. DaltonThe subsidies on rationed foods amount to about £8 a year per head of the civilian population. This is the same total as the yield of about 3s. 3d. in the standard rate of Income Tax. The abolition of the food subsidies would add about 12s. 6d. a week to the household budget of a family of four.
§ Sir T. MooreCould the Chancellor devise some scheme whereby these subsidies might be substantially reduced without harming the permanently lower-grade wage earners, as was envisaged in a leading article in "The Times" a few weeks ago?
§ Mr. DaltonI should not be surprised if an opportunity for debating this matter arose in the fairly early future.
§ Mr. LipsonWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the abolition of these subsidies, either in whole or in part, would cause great hardship to very many people and would have very serious consequences, and will he, therefore, leave well alone in this matter?
§ Mr. Ellis SmithWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, if a reduction of these subsidies is to take place, it will be looked upon by the industrial population as equivalent to a reduction in wages?
§ Mr. DaltonI note what my hon. Friend has said, and I note the intention behind the Question asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
§ Sir T. MooreThe intention was that the lower grade income groups should not be interfered with.