Proceeding contribution from Stephen Timms (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 7 July 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance Bill.
Finance Bill
Actually, it is true, and we have taken strenuous measures. I think my hon. Friend is suggesting some very complicated means-testing system that would require, for example, a very large number of people to fill in self-assessment forms who do not currently have to do so, and who would not know until the end of the year what their income tax was. I want to underline the fact that I am very happy to look at suggestions that Members and others may want to raise between now and the PBR. Blocking income tax is not the answer, however, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead to withdraw the new clause. The hon. Member for Taunton described amendment 37 as progressive. He also had the good grace to acknowledge that it would cost a fair amount of money: £18.5 billion actually, so it is completely unaffordable. I do not think the House will be attracted to it, despite the oratory that he employed to urge his move upon us. Amendment 40 provides for the adjustments that have to be made between settlors and trustees of a trust. It seeks to set out a mechanism for payment of tax by settlors, and addresses settlor-interested trusts and certain trust income of children that is treated as income of the settlor of the trust. I say to the hon. Member for Fareham that these changes are not necessary, however, as what they seek to achieve is already allowed by the rules. If he needs me to provide any further detail on that, I will be very happy to do so. New clause 1 and amendment 37 challenge the Government's response to helping families now and to compensating those who lost out from the abolition of the 10p income tax rate. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for leading a lengthy campaign on this issue, which has been effective and successful. He was right to raise it, and he has brought about significant changes. My case is that our response has been fair, straightforward and effective, and that it substantially deals with the concern raised. I understand that there are continuing concerns, and we are happy to continue to look at them, but halting the collection of income tax is not the answer.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 495 c891-2
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Companies Corporation tax Beer Competition Income tax Excise duties Low incomes Public houses Tax allowances Tax avoidance Taxation Tourism Rented housing Tax rates and bands Revenue and Customs Trade competitiveness Office of Tax Simplification
- Legislation
- Finance Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:42:23 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575464
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575464
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575464