asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing, where applicable, for each year since 1949 the maximum number of weeks for which a married man with a wife and two children not over 11 years of age, earning the average manual wage, threequarters of the average manual wage, and half the average manual wage, could receive income tax rebates when unemployed, and showing in each case the value of the wage and of the rebate.
The figures are approximately as shown in the table below:
(a) AVERAGE EARNINGS | |||
Year | Weekly earnings | Approx. weekly rate of rebate | Approx. maximum number of weeks for which rebate will run |
£ | £ | ||
1949–50 | 7·13 | 0·70 | 3 |
1950–51 | 7·52 | 0·65 | 6 |
1951–52 | 8·30 | 0·90 | 5 |
1952–53 | 8·93 | —* | —* |
1953–54 | 9·46 | 0·85 | 5 |
1954–55 | 10·22 | 0·85 | 7 |
1955–56 | 11·15 | 0·95 | 2 |
1956–57 | 11·90 | 1·10 | 6 |
1957–58 | 12·58 | 2·05 | 7 |
1958–59 | 12·83 | 2·10 | 7 |
1959–60 | 13·55 | 1·85 | 10 |
1960–61 | 14·53 | 1·90 | 12 |
1961–62 | 15·34 | 2·00 | 12 |
1962–63 | 15·86 | 2·00 | 14 |
1963–64 | 16·75 | 3·10 | 7 |
1964–65 | 18·11 | 3·30 | 10 |
1965–66 | 19·59 | 3·35 | 17 |
1966–67 | 20·30 | 3·45 | 15 |
1967–68 | 21·37 | 5·35 | 12 |
1968–69 | 23·00 | 4·85 | 15 |
1969–70 | 24·83 | 5·55 | 16 |
1970–71 | 28·05 | 4·90 | 23 |
1971–72 | 30·93 | 5·20 | 23 |
1972–73 | 35·82 | 6·20 | 22 |
1973–74 | 40·92 | 6·15 | 26 |
1974–75 | 48·63 | 7·95 | 26 |
(b) THREE-QUARTERS AVERAGE EARNINGS | |||
Year | Weekly earnings | Approx. weekly rate of rebate | Approx. maximum number of weeks for which rebate will run |
£ | £ | ||
1960–61 | 10·90 | 0·50 | 1 |
1961–62 | 11·51 | 0·75 | 3 |
1962–63 | 11·90 | 0·75 | 3 |
1963–64 | — | —* | —* |
1964–65 | 13·58 | 1·00 | 1 |
1965–66 | 14·69 | 2·10 | 5 |
1966–67 | 15·22 | 2·10 | 8 |
1967–68 | 16·03 | 3·10 | 6 |
1968–69 | 17·25 | 3·10 | 14 |
1969–70 | 18·62 | 3·35 | 13 |
1970–71 | 21·04 | 4·90 | 13 |
1971–72 | 23·20 | 5·20 | 13 |
1972–73 | 26·86 | 6·20 | 12 |
1973–74 | 30·69 | 6·15 | 15 |
1974–75 | 36·47 | 7·95 | 17 |
(c) HALF AVERAGE EARNINGS | |||
Year | Weekly earnings | Approx. weekly rate of rebate | Approx. maximum number of weeks for which rebate will run |
£ | £ | ||
1974–75 | 24·32 | 4·45 | 1 |
* No tax liability in this year. |
Notes:
The earnings figures used in the calculations are the average weekly earnings of full-time, male manual workers aged 21 and over in manufacturing and certain other industries at October of each year.
There was no tax liability for a married man with two children not over 11 for the years not shown under ( b) and ( c).
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average amount of income tax paid by each household in 1974–75; and what is the estimated yield per household in 1975–76.
I will write to the hon. Member.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the proportion of income paid in income tax and the total tax payable by a single man, married couple, married couple with two children under age 11 years, and married couple with four children (two under 11 and two between 11 and 16 years) with an annual income of £5,000, a mortgage of £5,000 (interest rate of 11 per cent.) and life assurance premium of £100 per annum; and, taking into account all other allowances against tax, if he will provide this information for 1945, 1950, 1960, 1970 and all subsequent years, both in current prices at those dates and in 1945 prices;(2) what is the proportion of income paid in income tax and the total tax payable by a single man, married couple, married couple with two children under age 11 years, and married couple with four children (two under 11 and two between 11 and 16 years) with an annual income of £20,000, a mortage of £25,000 (interest rate 11 per cent.) and life assurance premium of £500 per annum; and, taking in account all other allowances against tax, if he will provide this information for 1945, 1950, 1960, 1970 and all subsequent years both in current prices at those dates and in 1945 prices;
(3) what is the proportion of income paid in income tax, the total tax payable and the total benefits due to a single man, married couple, married couple with two children under age 11 years and married couple with four children (two under 11 years and two between 11 and 16 years) with an annual income of £2,000 and rent of £500 per annum, and taking into account all personal tax allowances against tax; and if he will provide this information for 1945, 1950, 1960, 1970 and all subsequent years, both in current prices at those dates and in 1945 prices;
(4) what is the proportion of income paid in income tax and the total tax payable by a single man, married couple, married couple with two children under age 11 years, and married couple with four children (two under 11 years and two between 11 and 16 years) with an annual income of £10,000, a mortgage of £10,000 (interest rate 11 per cent.) and life assurance premium of £250 per annum; and taking into account all other allowances against tax, if he will provide this information for 1945, 1950, 1960, 1970 and all subsequent years, both in current prices at those dates and in 1945 prices.
I am afraid that each of these Questions involved several hundred calculations, and answers could be prepared only with disproportionate expenditure of staff resources.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to the reply given to the hon. Member for Norfolk North on 9th July 1975, Official Report, cols. 196–200, if he will show how an increase in the tax threshold to £1,000, with no increase in the starting points for the higher rate bands, costs £6,600 million in lost revenue.
I will write to the hon. Member.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what were (a) the amount and, (b) percentage of income taken in tax and higher rates of tax. National Insurance contributions and all other stoppages, respectively, of a married couple with four children (two under 11 and two over 11 years) earnings; half average earnings, two thirds average earnings, average earning, twice average earnings and five times average earnings in 1945, 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975, respectively; and if he will express the figures up to 1965 in terms of 1945 prices;(2) what were (
a) the amount and ( b) percentage of income taken in tax and higher rates of tax, national insurance contributions and all other stoppages, respectively, of a married couple earning half average earnings, two thirds average earnings, average earnings, twice average earnings, and five times average earnings in 1945, 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975 respectively; and if he will express the figures up to 1965 in terms of 1945 prices;
(3) what were ( a) the amount and, ( b) percentage of income taken in tax and higher rates of tax, national insurance contributions and all other stoppages, respectively, of a single wage earner on: half average earnings, two thirds average earnings, average earnings, twice average earnings and five times average earnings in 1945, 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975, respectively; and if he will express the figures up to 1965 in terms of 1945 prices.
(4) what were ( a) the amount and, ( b) percentage of income taken in tax and higher rates of tax, national insurance contributions and all other stoppages, respectively, of a married couple with two children (under 11 years of age) earning half average earnings, two thirds average earnings, average earnings, twice average earnings, and five times average, in 1945, 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975, respectively; and if he will express the figures up to 1965 in terms of 1945 prices.
I am afraid that each of these Questions involves several hundred calculations and answers could be prepared only with disproportionate expenditure of staff resources.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer, in terms of lost revenue in the current financial year, if the income tax threshold were to be raised to (a) national average manual earnings, (b) three-quarters of the above, and (c) two-thirds of the above, assuming that the starting points for the higher rates of income tax remained unchanged.
I regret that in the time available it has not proved posible to collect and collate the information requested. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.