§ 11. Mr. Hardyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the weekly income of the following individuals can be expected to increase as a result of recent changes in the Finance Bill: a person on State retirement benefit, an export salesman with an income of £8,000, a skilled engineer with an income of £6,000, an entertainer with an earned income of £60,000 and a person with unearned income of £60,000.
§ Mr. Denzil DaviesIf the amendments passed in Committee on 8th and 10th May were enacted, and assuming that the individuals are married men without children, the increases in weekly income after tax compared with the Budget proposals would be nothing for the retired couple, £1.10p for the export salesman when earnings are £8,000, 71p for the skilled engineer when earnings are £6,000, and £10.81p when incomes, whether earned or from investments, are £60,000.
§ Mr. HardyDoes not that answer reveal that relatively little has been conferred by the Opposition upon those very persons to whom they referred most extensively in the debates which preceded the decision to make these changes, while a great deal has been conferred upon those to whom far less reference was made, who are exceedingly well placed? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this unfairness would have been even more outrageous had the Opposition succeeded in their attempt further to amend the Finance Bill?
§ Mr. DaviesMy hon. Friend is quite right. The amendments carried by the Opposition did very little, if anything, for the skilled engineer and middle management, but they did a considerable amount, as the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) intended they should, for pop stars.
§ Mr. AdleyWould it not be useful if the answer could include the total 1736 amount of tax paid by each of the persons referred to? Do the Government intend to hark back to the days of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and produce a list of those whom the Government consider to be useful people?
§ Mr. DaviesMy right hon. Friend's Budget made considerable tax reductions for people earning high incomes. A person earning £25,000 a year benefits by £600 from the Budget. I should have thought that that was a very reasonable benefit.
§ Mr. MaddenDoes my right hon. Friend agree that a Tory tax strategy which gives a man on £40 a week nothing and a man on £80 a week less than the price of a half pint of bitter is totally unacceptable and unsatisfactory and in stark contrast to the Budget, which gave substantial help to low-paid workers and their families?
§ Mr. DaviesYes, Sir. The Conservative amendment showed again where the Tory Party's priorities lie—hardly anything for people with under £10,000 a year and a considerable amount for those on the very top incomes.
§ Mr. Peter ReesWill the Minister of State confirm that even after the amendments carried against his own Government, the four categories of taxpayer to which the Question refers will still be worse off, and their net income will be less, than their counterparts in France, Italy, Germany, Japan and the United States?
§ Mr. DaviesThe hon. and learned Gentleman knows the difficulty of making international tax comparisons. One thing that he does not take into account is the level of indirect taxation in any of those countries.