--
the
taxation for married
against the Budget.
← (in Cantonese) : Sir, in the last financial
year, due to the Financial Secretary's rejection of
community's strong demand for separate
couples, I casted a dissenting vote During the Policy Address Debate this year, I restated my This is why, as many already know, I would not
support the motion today, and I would again cast a dissenting
vote against the Budget.
1
Mr SZETO-Wair:
2
3
Mr SZETO
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
stand.
The Financial Secretary said, and I quote:
is toward
Countries
I am also aware of the trend in some other tax
administrations the direction of
direction of separate taxation.
I am prepared to consider further how separate taxation
for workingtwives might best be introduced.
The Financial Secretary also said, and I quote:
NP 20 [
•NP
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
le 31
*This is a complex subject. It would, therefore, not be
feasible to introduce separate taxation overnight.
I heard that it would take two years --as fitgë (
TI interested to
am
to
know
consider further the question.
whether it is true that the direction of separate taxation
Counties still remains only a trend in some other tax administration, or whether the truth is: many other tax administrations have already implemented separate taxation for a long time
When did the Financial Secretary first become aware of this
trend? Why wasn't he aware of this trend before that? This
countries'
solvé
may indeed be a complex subject, but why are the other tax
and administrations able to find solutions te the problems while Hong Kong alone, finds it difficult to implement? Why would
further consideration take as long as two years? Why can't the Financial Secretary affirmatively accept the principle of
separate taxation for married couples and proceed to further consider only the practical measures of realising this
are only stalling
32
33
34
35
36
principle?
tactics.
The naked truth
is:
such