– in the House of Commons at on 20 February 1940.
Sir Frank Sanderson
, Ealing
asked the Chancellor of the exchequer his estimates of the amount payable by persons with annual incomes of £5,000, £10,000, £20,000 and £50,000, respectively, in Income Tax, Surtax and insurance to cover Estate Duty, based on the calculation made by the Colwyn Committee on National Debt and Taxation, if the taxpayer derives all his income from investments, and if the taxpayer derives half his income from investments and half from earnings, respectively, in the years 1913, 1923, 1933 and 1940?
Mr John Simon
, Spen Valley
I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the information desired.
Sir Frank Sanderson
, Ealing
Can the Chancellor of the exchequer say whether in the case of larger incomes that Income Tax, Surtax and insurances for Estate Duty do in fact absorb the whole of the income, and that therefore these persons are in fact living on their capital?
Mr John Simon
, Spen Valley
If the hon. Member will look at the tables he will see how far his conclusions are correct.
| The following table shows, for the years 1913–14, 1923–24, 1933–34 and 1940–41, the Income Tax and Surtax (or Super Tax) payable on the incomes in question, together with the net annual payment required to meet the Estate Duty on death. The table is on the basis adopted in their Report by the Colwyn Committee on National Debt and Taxation, investment income being capitalised on a 5 per cent, basis and the taxpayer being assumed to be a married man, aged 45, with three children. | |||||||||||||||
| Year | Total Income. | All Investment Income. | Half Earned Income and Half Investment Income. | ||||||||||||
| Equivalent Capital | Income Tax | Surtax (or Super Tax) | Net Insurance payment to provide for Estate Duty. | Total. | Equivalent Capital. | Income Tax. | Surtax (or Super Tax). | Net Insurance payment to provide for Estate Duty. | Total. | ||||||
| £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | 4 | £ | £ | £ | |||||
| 1913–14 | … | … | … | 5,000 | 100,000 | 292 | — | 298 | 590 | 50,000 | 292 | — | 113 | 405 | |
| 10,000 | 200,000 | 583 | 175 | 725 | 1,483 | 100,000 | 583 | 175 | 290 | 1,048 | |||||
| 20,000 | 400,000 | 1,167 | 425 | 1,600 | 3,192 | 200,000 | 1,167 | 425 | 725 | 2,317 | |||||
| 50,000 | 1,000,000 | 2,917 | 1,175 | 5,176 | 9,268 | 500,000 | 2,917 | 1,175 | 2,000 | 6,092 | |||||
| 1923–24 | … | … | … | 5,000 | 100,000 | 1,029 | 362 | 501 | 1,892 | 50,000 | 984 | 302 | 176 | 1,522 | |
| 10,000 | 200,000 | 2,154 | 1,462 | 1,420 | 5,036 | 100,000 | 2,109 | 1,462 | 501 | 4,072 | |||||
| 20,000 | 400,000 | 4,404 | 3,962 | 4,122 | 12,488 | 200,000 | 4,359 | 3,902 | 1,420 | 9,741 | |||||
| 50,000 | 1,000,000 | 11,154 | 12,712 | 14,121 | 37,987 | 500,000 | 11,109 | 12,712 | 5,252 | 29,073 | |||||
| 1933–34 | … | … | … | 5,000 | 100,000 | 1,158 | 337 | 733 | 2,228 | 50,000 | 1,083 | 337 | 247 | 1,667 | |
| 10,000 | 200,000 | 2,408 | 1,519 | 2,099 | 6,026 | 100,000 | 2,333 | 1,519 | 732 | 4,584 | |||||
| 20,000 | 400,000 | 4,908 | 4,682 | 6,258 | 15,848 | 200,000 | 4,833 | 4,682 | 2,019 | 11,534 | |||||
| 50,000 | 1,000,000 | 12,408 | 15,957 | 23,231 | 51,596 | 500,000 | 12,333 | 15,957 | 8,050 | 36,340 | |||||
| 1940–41 | … | … | … | 5.000 | 100,000 | 1,724 | 369 | 908 | 3,001 | 50,000 | 1,630 | 369 | 286 | 2,285 | |
| 10,000 | 200,000 | 3,599 | 1,706 | 3,025 | 8,330 | 100,000 | 3,506 | 1,706 | 865 | 6,077 | |||||
| 20,000 | 400,000 | 7,349 | 5,706 | 8,400 | 21,455 | 200,000 | 7,256 | 5,706 | 2,712 | 15,674 | |||||
| 50,000 | 1,000,000 | 18,599 | 19,706 | 42,938 | 81,243 | 500,000 | 18,506 | 19,706 | 10,871 | 49,083 | |||||
Sir Frank Sanderson
, Ealing
asked the Chancellor of the exchequer whether owing to the increased taxation, and the complexity of the method of arriving at the amount which is subject to direct taxation, necessitating the professional services of accountants, and, as it is to the advantage of both the Treasury and the taxpayer that the amount subject to taxation should be accurate, he will consider between now and the next Budget allowing the deduction of accountants' fees before arriving at the net taxable income?
Mr John Simon
, Spen Valley
I must refer my hon. Friend to my answer given to him on 14th December last.
Sir Frank Sanderson
, Ealing
Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that these current expenses are really charges against income, and will he not re-consider the position between now and the next Budget?
Mr John Simon
, Spen Valley
I will give proper consideration to any serious suggestion put forward, but as at present advised I do not think that I can agree with the hon. Member.
The chancellor of the exchequer is the government's chief financial minister and as such is responsible for raising government revenue through taxation or borrowing and for controlling overall government spending.
The chancellor's plans for the economy are delivered to the House of Commons every year in the Budget speech.
The chancellor is the most senior figure at the Treasury, even though the prime minister holds an additional title of 'First Lord of the Treasury'. He normally resides at Number 11 Downing Street.
