§ Mr. Nigel GriffithsTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the manner of his reply on 19 April,Official Report, columns 417–18, he will publish a table showing the proportion of gross income paid in income tax, national insurance contributions, domestic rates, and other indirect taxes by (a) a single person, (b) a married couple with one earner and (c) a married man with a non-earning wife and two children, at half, one, one and a half, two, five and 10 times average male earnings in 1988–89; and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79.
§ Mr. Norman Lamont[holding answer 5 May 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on 17 May, at columns 423–30.
§ Mr. Nigel GriffithsTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the manner of his reply given on 29 February,Official Report, columns 443–45, he will update and publish the table detailing the breakdown on the costs or yields of reinstating the 1978–79 tax regime, taking the 1988–89 tax base.
§ Mr. Norman Lamont[holding answer 5 May 1988]: The information is in the table.
Reductions in income tax liabilities in 1988–89 compared with the indexed 1978–79 tax regime Source of income tax reduction(-) increase (+) Amount £ million Increase in personal allowances -5,190 Abolition of reduced rate band +2,970 Decrease in basic rate -11,820 Increase in higher rate threshold -400 Abolition of higher rates above 40 per cent. -4,410 Abolition of investment income surcharge -1,140 Total -20,000 In the table, the effect of each change has been calculated on the assumption that each of the previous changes has already been made. The figures are based on the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes projected to 1988–89 and are therefore provisional.
§ Mr. Nigel GriffithsTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in theOfficial Report a distributional analysis of all income tax reductions since 1979 taking the gains to the top 1 per cent., top 2 to 5 per 53W cent., 6 to 10 per cent., top 11 to 20 per cent., top 21 to 30 per cent., top 31 to 50 per cent. and bottom 50 per cent giving the number of tax units for each group, the reduction in income tax for each group compared with 1978–79, and the average per tax unit, in the manner of his reply on 24 July 1987, Official Report, columns 566–67.
§ Mr. Norman Lamont[holding answer 5 May 1988]: The tables show the latest estimates of reductions in income tax liabilities at 1988–89 income levels of the
Reductions in income tax liabilities in 1988–89 compared with 1978–79 indexed tax regime Point of income distribution in 1988–891 Number of units2 paying tax in 1988–89 Reduction in tax Average3 reduction in income tax compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime millions £ billion £ per year Top 1 per cent. .21 4.7 22,680 Top 2 to 5 per cent. .84 2.8 3,350 Top 6 to 10 per cent. 1.0 1.8 1,770 Top 11 to 20 per cent. 2.1 2.6 1,220 Top 21 to 30 per cent. 2.1 1.9 910 Top 31 to 50 per cent. 4.2 2.8 680 Bottom 50 per cent. 10.5 3.4 290 All 20.9 20.0 910 1 Based on 20,900,000 single people and married couples expected to pay tax in 1988–89 and excluding 1,100,000 who would pay tax undei the revalorised 1978–79 regime. 2 All information is in terms of tax units, ie married couples are counted as one and their incomes combined. 3 Based on taxpayers expected to pay tax under a revalorised 1978–79 regime.