§ Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate
88W£50,000 and £100,000, assuming that he was married with two children under 10 years of age, had no unearned income, that his wife had no income, and that he had no life insurance allowance.
§ Mr. TaverneThe figures are as follows:
the cost of giving a 35s. family allowance to all children, on the basis that the whole allowance for all children were clawed back by means of a reduction in the children's allowances against income tax designed to leave the standard rate taxpayer, with earned income relief, unaffected.
§ Mr. TaverneI am not quite sure what the hon. Member has in mind. But if he means that there would be a reduction in parents' tax allowances, such that standard rate taxpayers would be deprived of all benefit from family allowances, and would lose the net benefit they now receive, the extra tax charged would roughly equal the increase in the gross cost of family allowances.
§ Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the cost of increasing the family allowance to 35s. for the second and subsequent child, clawing the increase back precisely for the standard rate taxpayer, with earned income relief, by means of a reduction in the child allowances;
(2) if he will estimate the cost of giving a 35s. family allowance to all children, including the first, clawing the increase back, and the whole of it in the case of the family allowance for the first 89W child, by means of a reduction in children's allowances, in such a way as to leave the standard rate taxpayer, with earned income relief, unaffected financially.
§ Mr. TaverneAbout £40 million and about £115 million for 1969–70 for Great Britain, disregarding consequential changes in other social security benefits.