29
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1993
QUESTION:
GOOD MORNING FINANCIAL SECRETARY. I WOULD LIKE ΤΟ ASK: NOW YOU SAY THAT FOR THE SECOND CHILD'S ALLOWANCE THAT HAS BEEN INCREASED BY $8,000; THAT IS A GOOD SUM. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE THIRD CHILD, THE ALLOWANCE STILL STANDS AT $3,000, DO YOU THINK THAT IS ADEQUATE OR DO YOU WANT TO PENALISE THOSE COUPLES WITH THREE CHILDREN? SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WANT ΤΟ SUPPORT THE FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION, IS THIS THE CASE?
FS:
WELL, YES, I THINK THE MAIN BENEFIT SHOULD GO TO WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL THE NORMAL SIZE OF HONG KONG FAMILY, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE TWO CHILDREN; MY FAMILY HAPPENS TO BE TWO CHILDREN, TOO. I HAVEN'T ACTUALLY DETECTED ANY GREAT PRESSURE TO INCREASE THE ALLOWANCES FOR THE THIRD AND SUBSEQUENT CHILDREN. BUT I NOTE THAT, I THINK WHAT YOU ARK SAYING IS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT DONE, I WILL CERTAINLY NOTE THAT POINT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
KIT CUMMINGS: CAN WE PICK UP ON A DIFFERENT QUESTION NOW, AND THAT IS THE EXTENT OF AVOIDANCE OR EVASION OF TAX IN HONG KONG. IN OTHER PLACES IT IS REALLY A VERY MAJOR PROBLEM AND MOST FINANCIAL SECRETARIES OR THE EQUIVALENT, EVERY TIME THEY HAVE A BUDGET SPEECH THEY SAY HOW MUCH POTENTIAL THERE IS FOR GETTING MONEY INTO THE SYSTEM THROUGH TAX-DODGERS OR EVEN THROUGH LEGITIMATE EVASIONS, WHICH CAN BE PLUGGED THROUGH LEGISLATION. YOU HAVE ALLUDED TO IT BRIEFLY THERE YOUR BUDGET SPEECH, BUT DO YOU THINK THERE REALLY IS MUCH MONEY OUT THERE THAT CAN BE COLLECTED THROUGH DILIGENT INLAND REVENUE SERVICE BURROWING?
FS:
IN
YES I THINK HUMAN NATURE IS SUCH THAT EVEN
+
WHEN YOU HAVE A SIMPLE LOW TAX SYSTEM, PEOPLE WILL TRY AND AVOID IT, OR COMPANIES WILL TRY TO AVOID IT, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM, AND I HAVE HAD A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM LEGCO MEMBERS IN THE NOTION THAT WE SHOULD SOMEWHAT INCREASE THE RESOURCES OF THE INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO TRY AND DEAL WITH THIS. THE INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT EXPERIMENTED WITH WHAT IS CALLED 'FIELD AUDIT TEAMS AND THOSE HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL, THEY ACTUALLY GET OUT THERE AND CHECK, PARTICULARLY THIS IS COMPANY ACCOUNTS, AND THEY HAVE HAD A LOT OF SUCCESS. SO WE ARE MODESTLY INCREASING THE STAFF FROM THE INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO HELP THEM TACKLE THAT, PLUS THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE SIMPLIFICATION OF TAX MEASURES THAT I HAVE TAKEN, THE ABOLITION OF TAXES, WILL ALSO RELEASE STAFF ALSO IN THE INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT WHO WILL BE USED TO COMBAT BOTH AVOIDANCE AND EVASION. PLUS THE FACT THAT I THINK EVERY YEAR WE HAVE TO INTRODUCE ONE OR TWO LEGISLATIVE MEASURES TO DEAL WITH LOOPHOLES THAT HAVE EMERGED.
QUESTION:
GOOD MORNING MR MACLEOD. I MUST WELCOME THE BUDGET THIS YEAR BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE A VERY LENIENT BUDGET BUT I HAVE JUST A SHORT COMMENT. WITH CONCERN TO THE TAX ON THE COSMETICS, I SEE NO REAL URGENT REASON WHY YOU HAVE TO CUT BACK, BECAUSE TO MY POINT I THINK MOST OF THE PUBLIC WILL STILL BUY THE COSMETICS AND I THINK THE TAX WHICH IS GENERATED BY THE COSMETICS CAN BE PUT INTO BETTER USE. SAY FOR EXAMPLE, THE INCREASE IN HEALTH OR EDUCATION, I THINK THEY CERTAINLY NEED MORE REVENUE TO BE GIVEN IN THESE TWO AREAS INSTEAD OF CUTTING THE COSMETIC TAX WHICH I DON'T THINK IS REALLY PROBLEM FOR MOST OF THE PUBLIC.
AN
URGENT
/FS
Page 30Page 31