§ 20. Mr. Bingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the sum by which the standard rate of Income Tax would have to be raised in order to obtain a tax yield of 1s. per week from a gainfully employed person who is, respectively, single, married, and married with three children, and who earns, respectively, £4, £5, £6, £7, £8, £9, £10, £11, and £12 per week.
§ Mr. H. BrookeIn none of the cases mentioned is any tax actually payable at the standard rate. Therefore the question what increase, if any, in that rate would be required to obtain the yields mentioned would depend upon the relationship that was fixed between the standard rate and the reduced rates, and upon the amounts of the bands of income chargeable at the reduced rates.
§ Mr. BingIs not the hon. Gentleman capable of supposing that the same proportions were maintained, and would it not be valuable, before the debate tomorrow, to know that what, in fact, he is doing is raising to 15s. a week the rate to those who are paying the increased 1s. contribution? Is that what he is afraid of disclosing?
§ Mr. BrookeI think it would be a rash supposition on my part to assume that the relationship between the various rates would be maintained, because virtually on all other occasions when the standard rate has been changed the proportionate relationship has also been changed.
§ 21. Mr. Bingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the married allowance permitted under Income Tax law would have to be lowered in order that a gainfully-employed married man, without children, earning £5 a week would pay Income Tax at a rate equivalent to 1s. a week and by how much would the children's allowance have to be lowered in order that a similar amount of tax could be obtained from a similarly employed man with three children earning £9 per week.
§ Mr. H. BrookeBy £29 and £41, respectively.
§ 23. Mr. Bairdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the estimated gain to the Exchequer of raising all Income Tax proportionately so that a married man with two children earning £10 per week would pay tax at an increased rate equivalent to 1s. per week.
§ Mr. H. BrookeIt would be contrary to the principles of our Income Tax system to increase all tax liabilities proportionately in this way. I could not, therefore, give a figure that would not be misleading.
§ Mr. BairdIs it not a fact that it would be much better to raise Income Tax by 1d. than to raise the contribution 'to the National Insurance Fund by is., which would give the same return?
§ Mr. BrookeI think the hon. Member is anticipating the speech he hopes to make on Second Reading tomorrow, but 'he must not expect me to anticipate my speech, too.