§ 3. Mr. John Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his estimate of the gross salary which, in 1938, would have given a married man with two children the same purchasing value, after tax, as he receives today from a gross salary of£2,000 and £3,000, respectively.
§ Mr. H. BrookeAbout £633 and £859 respectively.
§ Mr. HallDoes my right hon. Friend think it right to impose additional taxation in the form of Surtax on a purchasing value of £633?
§ Mr. BrookeMy hon. Friend is calling attention to the heavy burden of present-day taxation. On that I could not agree with him more.
§ 4. Mr. John Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the gross earned incomes required today by a married man with two children to equal, after deduction of tax, the purchasing power of gross earned incomes in 1938 of £2,000 and of £3,000 per annum.
§ Mr. H. BrookeAbout £12,200 and £34,600 respectively.
§ Mr. HallIs not this an apt illustration of the old saying that "The higher you go the fewer," and does not this act as a great discouragement to men and women who find that as they progress in their professions their standard of living falls?
§ Mr. BrookeI think that what my hon. Friend says is perfectly true.
Mr. H. WilsonSince the right hon. Gentleman has seemed to deplore the high level of taxation in his answers to the last two supplementary questions, does not he recall that throughout the debates on the Finance Bill before Christmas his one complaint was whenever he found a yawning gap of anything that was not being taxed?
§ Mr. BrookeI well remember the yawning gaps, but on those occasions we were discussing furniture and pots and pans, not salaries in four figures.
§ 5. Mr. John Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what salary he would need today to equal in purchasing power, after tax, the salary enjoyed by the holder of his office in 1938.
§ Mr. H. BrookeAbout £75,000.
§ Mr. HallIs my right hon. Friend aware that I am almost overwhelmed by that figure? May I ask him if he thinks that the holders of the august office of Chancellor of the Exchequer before 1938 were overpaid or, alternatively, does he think that the duties and responsibilities of that office have lightened since 1938? If not, will he say when he proposes to take such measures as may be necessary to increase the salaries of the Chancellor and other Ministers, and especially junior Ministers? Is he aware that, although it may be less difficult to become a junior Minister than a bummaree, a bummaree is probably very much better off?
§ Mr. BrookeI can scarcely answer all my hon. Friend's questions, but I think that the original Question has called attention to how hard it is, with present-day penal rates of taxation on large incomes, to remunerate adequately men in any walk of life who carry great responsibilities.
§ Mr. JayCan the right hon. Gentleman give the corresponding figures for the ordinary, humble back-bencher?
§ Mr. BrookeNot without notice.
§ Mr. EdeIs the Answer based on the assumption that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his wife have no private income of their own?
§ Mr. BrookeYes, that is the assumption.