P.A.Y.E. tax

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32975, 22 July 1972, Page 14

P.A.Y.E. tax

Sir, —I feel that married men with children should be warned that the new P.A.Y.E. tax rates will generally not* be sufficient to satisfy their tax obligations. For example, a man with four children earning $lOO a week will pay ($1097 P.A.Y.E., leaving $93 Ito be paid at the end of the.

year, asuming there are no other exemptions. Other examples are, on the same $lOO per week rate: M2, $65.48; M 6, $122.32; MB, $150.18. This arises because the child exemption, allowed in the old P.A.Y.E. tables, has been removed from April 1 last. Whether such retrospective tax is fair is debatable, but people should certainly be warned to save for it.— Yours, etc., R.A.C. July 19, 1972. [Mr C. K. Jones, District Commissioner of Taxes, replies: “Your correspondent’s figures and the statement that the child exemption has been removed from April last are not correct. The Budget statement is that the child exemption will be removed from July 1, 1972, and a residual child exemption will be available to cover the period, April to June, 1972. Where a taxpayer has no other exemptions and his income is earned reasonably evenly over the year, the deductions made in accordance with the previous P.A.Y.E. tables which applied from April to June, and the new tables which apply from July onwards, will in fact closely approximate his correct tax for the year ending on March 31, 1973. If ‘R.A.C.’ would like a further check of his figures I would suggest that he get in touch with me.”]