WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1978
PROPOSED DEPENDENT PARENT ALLOWANCE COMPARES
FAVOURABLY WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
******
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, THE HON. PHILIP HADDON-CAVE, TOLD THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY THAT THE LEVEL OF THE PROPOSED DEPENDENT PARENT ALLOWANCE AT $4,000 PER PARENT COMPARES VERY FAVOURABLY WITH SIMILAR ALLOWANCES IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
SPEAKING ON THE INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 5) BILL TO RE-INTRODUCE THE DEPENDENT PARENT ALLOWANCE, MR. HADDON-CAVE SAID, THE ALLOWANCE IS THE EQUIVALENT OF LESS THAN $1,000 PER PARENT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND IN SINGAPORE IT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF ABOUT $1,500 PER PARENT.
HE SAID THE PROPOSED LEVEL OF ALLOWANCE IS BASED ON THE EXISTING ALLOWANCE FOR A FIRST CHILD, AND THE ALLOWANCE NOW PROPOSED
IS NON-MEANS TESTED AND IS PAYABLE IN FULL IRRESPECTIVE OF THE COST TO THE TAXPAYER OF THE MAINTENANCE OF THE DEPENDENT PARENT.
♦A PARENT WILL BE REGARDED AS BEING MAINTAINED IF HE RESIDES WITH A TAXPAYER RENT-FREE FOR NOT LESS THAN SIX MONTHS, OR IF THE TAXPAYER CONTRIBUTES NOT LESS THAN $1,200 A YEAR IN CASH TOWARDS HIS MAINTENANCE,+ HE ADDED,
HE SAID THE PROPOSED ALLOWANCE IS MUCH MORE GENEROUS THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE BECAUSE THE NEW SCHEME DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ABATEMENT AND WHERE THE COST TO THE TAXPAYER OF MAINTAINING HIS PARENT IS LESS THAN $4,000 A YEAR, THE FULL ALLOWANCE WILL STILL BE ALLOWED.
IT
REFERRING TO CRITICISM ON THE PROPOSED AGE CRITERION OF 60 OR ABOVE, HE SAID IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO AGE CRITÉRION AT ALL, OR, IF AN AGE CRITERION IS NECESSARY, SHOULD BE PEGGED AT A LEVEL TO RELATE TO THE RETIREMENT AGE OF CIVIL SERVANTS OF 55 OR EVEN 45.
HE EXPRESSED DOUBT OVER THE RELEVANCE OF THE RETIREMENT AGE OF CIVIL SERVANTS AND THE ALLOWANCE AS SUCH, WHICH IS NOT DIRECTED AT CIVIL SERVANTS.
HE SAID: IN ANY CASE, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR CIVIL SERVANTS TO EXTEND THE IR SERVICE BEYOND THE RETIREMENT AGE OF 55, AND IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES, THOSE WHO DO RETIRE AT 55 ARE IN RECEIPT OF A PENSION OR HAVE ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT.
MR HADDON-CAVE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE IMPOSITION OF AN AGE CRITERION IS IN PART TO BOLSTER THE CONCEPT OF MAINTENANCE AND IN PART TO REDUCE THE COST TO THE REVENUE.
+TO REMOVE THE AGE LIMIT ALTOGETHER WOULD ENTAIL
A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN FORGONE REVENUE. THIS WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE ON BUDGETARY GROUNDS, HE SAID.
IN ADDITION,