Page 99 of 135
162
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Other than people with ulterior motives, I believe that most colleagues will agree that our revenue and expenditure have to be adjusted according to the needs of the community and the case is true of other countries and places in the world. As such, how can we blindly oppose a proposal which "makes adjustment to the times"? How can we disregard the actual situation and fix a rigid percentage for taxation? If the needs of our community really demand more money, we can ask for an increase. On the other hand, if we have too great a surplus, we should cut it down voluntarily.
But people with ulterior motives have disregarded this simple principle and objected unreasonably. They impose on other people the accusation of "merely courting the favour of the public". Some people have reacted to such accusations by saying "sour grapes" and others by "cynical". Ill-informed as I am, I do not know which is the right answer.
Those who hold opposite views have never given any thoughts to what is to be done with the large amount of surplus. They merely put up "expansion of services for the public" as an excuse to court public favour. In fact, our budget has shown clearly what our expenses will be. We have no need and no reasonable way of using the great surplus which is actually the hard-earned money of the people, a surplus unlike those we got in previous years. This is a question of the "need" against the "expenses". In using public money, there must first of all be the need before we plan to use the money wisely to satisfy that need. We don't plan for the "expenses" first and then look for the "needs". If we work by this principle, we would have to look for the "needs" in order to spend the large surplus and the "needs" thus found may not be the actual needs of the people.
Some people think that so long as we object to the high increase in rateable value, we are free to raise strong opposition against any cut in the percentage of rates levied by the Urban Council. Objections against high rateable value are raised in the hope to ease the burden of the people. But opposition to the lowering of our share of rates will surely make the burden of the people heavier. It is hard to understand such self-contradictory arguments. If our people have to live under great pressure in order to be able to lay their hope in the Council for the provision of more services in the future, such as providing more playgrounds, I am not sure how many of them will possess such quality of self-sacrifice. However, the most important point is whether there is the need for such sacrifice.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
163
It is wise and reasonable for the Urban Council to conditionally cut the percentage of rates. To the Government, it serves as a precedent for the reduction of rates, thus eliminating any excuse for accusation. To the public, it testifies to the fact that we give back to the people what we have taken from them especially when we have a surplus. Mr. Chairman, you have recently suggested that we should give our rate surplus back to the people since our works programmes are freezed by the Government. My suggestions now are, in fact, in line with yours.
Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, I support the motion.
(The Hon. Hilton CHEONG-LEEN left the meeting and Mr. B. A. BERNACCHI arrived at this point.)
MR. AMBROSE K. C. CHOI (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I feel that the existing system of taxation has, in certain respects, departed from the realities. It is inappropriate for this age and unsuitable for the present economic conditions. In this connection, I wish to point out in particular that the Salaries Tax System is far from being satisfactory and I am quite sure that the public at large are all sharing my view. If the Government is really concerned about the livelihood of the people and the interests of those in the middle and lower income brackets, it must take immediate steps to improve the unreasonably system by raising the amount of Personal Allowances in respect of self and child and to re-introduce the Parents Allowance.
As we all know, the amount of Personal Allowance for self was $7,000 in the past. It was only raised to the current $10,000 in 1973, but at the same time the Parents Allowance of $2,000 was abolished. The amount of allowance sees no increase in real terms and as such, it is out of proportion to the soaring cost of living nowadays.
Ever since 1973, local commodity prices have been skyrocketing and the cost of living has been on the increase year by year. The income of the wage-earners can hardly keep pace with the increase in commodity prices and public utilities charges. They are already exhausted in trying to keep body and soul together. And yet the Government tries to levy Salaries Tax on them. Certainly this will benefit the coffers a lot but for the wage-earners, it will mean an added burden on them, driving them into a corner, which may give rise to social unrest. This is contrary to the principle of imposing Direct Tax without causing hardships to the general public.
The starting point of taxable salary in respect of Salaries Tax is unreasonably low and the abolition of Parents Allowance is against the
Page 99 of 135
162
163