4
2
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1992
THE
Ꮀ
WE
AS HELPFUL WITH
A
BY THE WHICH
THE USUAL WAY OF TRYING TO PUT THESE FIGURES INTO PERSPECTIVE ONE THAT
BEFORE, WE'VE USED
HAVEN'T JUST
IT THOUGHT OF
IS TO EXPRESS
RESERVES PERCENTAGE OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE, AND I THINK THAT IS A WAY OF PUTTING IT INTO PERSPECTIVE. WE WILL GIVE YOU A HANDOUT THE FIGURES FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS AND FOR THE PERIOD COVERED MEDIUM-RANGE FORECAST, BOTH THE FIGURES AND A NICE. LITTLE CHART
OVER THE LAST I HOPE WILL ILLUSTRATE THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE.
EXPENDITURE, HAVE 10 YEARS, RESERVES, AS A PERCENTAGE OF GOVERNMENT
AT THE RESERVES IN 1992-93 WILL BE VARIED BETWEEN ABOUT 50% AND 90%.
WILL HAVE ABOUT 80% OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE, AND BY 1996-97 THEY
SO THEY MAY SOUND A DROPPED TO ABOUT 40% OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE.
AND LOT BUT IN RELATION TO ANNUAL EXPENDITURE THEY ARE NOT THAT BIG.
THAT OVER THE I WOULD JUST REPEAT, THE PURPOSE OF THE RESERVES IS
TO PERIOD
IT'S NOT JUST 1996-97, BUT OVER THOSE YEARS LEADING UP
DEFICITS WHICH 1996-97
WHEN WE WILL BE ENTERING INTO SOME MODEST WILL OF COURSE REDUCE OUR RESERVES, THAT WE SHOULD ENSURE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH TO MEET UNFORESEEN DEVELOPMENTS. AND REALLY, I MUST SAY AGAIN, I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY PRUDENT WAY FOR THIS GOVERNMENT TO ACT. THAT'S JUST SOME COMMENTS. THE HANDOUT WILL BE NOW? WHO HAS GOT IT? ANYWAY, IT WILL BE DONE.
IT.
-
—
SO
-
OR
AT THE END? DON'T LEAVE WITHOUT
SECONDLY, JUST TO REPEAT THE BEEN UNDERSTOOD, POINT I MADE YESTERDAY, IN CASE IT HASN'T ENTIRELY
THAT THE INCREASE IN PROFITS-TAX IS NOT THE TOP OF A SLIPPERY-SLOPE,
HEAD THAT WE IS TO SAY THERE IS NO THOUGHT EVEN IN THE BACK OF MY
WE ARE COMMITTED SHOULD GO ON AND ON AND ON INCREASING PROFITS-TAX. STILL TO A LOW TAX POLICY AND AS I SAID IN THE SPEECH, ON OUR PROJECTIONS AND OBVIOUSLY BARRING ANY UNFORESEEN DEVELOPMENTS THINK THAT THIS PACKAGE WILL SET US UP QUITE WELL FOR THE
WITHOUT RADICAL CHANGE HEREAFTER. 1996-97
IS SO THAT
—
PRESENT
WE
PERIOD THE
ΤΟ
SECOND
POINT.
THE THIRD POINT
_
THE SANDWICH-
CLASS,
THE
-
AND
THE
PERSONAL 1992-93. CHANGES
SO
WHICH OF COURSE IS NOT TERRIBLY WELL DEFINED BUT BASICALLY IS
WHO ARE JUST
ΤΟ GROUP OF PEOPLE
TOO WELL-OFF
QUALIFY FOR WELL- SUBSIDISED HOUSING, TO PUT IT MORE GENERALLY, BUT ARE NOT QUITE
AFFORD
BUY PRIVATE HOUSING, TO
THEIR OWN OFF ENOUGH TO
PRIVATE HOUSING. IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT WE ARE NOT HELPING THEM ENOUGH THAT HAS BEEN RELATED TO THE SALARIES-TAX ALLOWANCES, AND SOMEHOW IMPRESSION HAS BEEN GIVEN THAT WE HAVE ALLOWED SALARIES-TAX ALLOWANCES THAT IS NOT CORRECT. TO FALL BEHIND INFLATION, THAT IS NOT CORRECT IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE INCREASE IN THE BUDGET, THEN TO HAVE INCREASED OVER THE PERIOD FROM 1986-87 ALLOWANCES IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE INCREASES IN THE ALLOWANCES, AND IN
INFLATION, THE
TAX BANDS, THEY HAVE INCREASED IN LINE WITH THERE IS NO GAP TO BE FILLED. SO IN THAT SENSE, THE SANDWICH-CLASS IS NEITHER BETTER-OFF NOR WORSE-OFF THAN IT WAS SOME YEARS PREVIOUSLY.
AT PROBLEM THAT
I DO ACCEPT THAT THEY HAVE A PARTICULAR SAID,
HIGH. MOMENT AND THAT IS BECAUSE PROPERTY PRICES ARE VERY NOTHING
PROBLEM. TO DO WITH THE TAX SYSTEM BUT IT IS A GENUINE HAVE TRIED TO HELP ON THAT AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY AND HELP THAT BY AT
SPECULATION AND THE EFFECTS OF LEAST DISCOURAGING ON PROPERTY
SEE PRICES WHENEVER WE SPECULATION
IT
AND HAPPENING WHENEVER WE THINK WE CAN AFFECT THAT PARTICULAR PROBLEM. CONTRIBUTION.
THE
IT
HAS
WE ON
THAT IS A
•
/BUT, AS