Is this how we intend to treat pensioners?

Following the first letter by your correspondent on 24 March and thinking that there must be some mistake, I wrote to your paper pointing out how discriminatory the income tax, on behalf of the States, had behaved in the way they had treated the 80-year-old married couple who were the subject of the letter.

I also looked up the States Billet that was responsible for the amendments. The billet was XX 2014 and placed before the States on Wednesday 24 September 2014 by the Treasury and Resources Department under 'All other Parliamentary business', and was subheaded 'Miscellaneous amendments to the Income Tax law'.

The relevant heading was section 2.2 Entitlement to allowances for married persons.

What sub sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 do is remove the married person's allowance from a couple where one is receiving a pension from Guernsey and that couple have decided for whatever reason to move from Guernsey.

The person receiving the married person's allowance will have that cut to a single person's allowance on leaving Guernsey.

This has had a serious effect on the earnings of the 80-year-old couple, where the wife is apparently an invalid.

I wondered what had been debated in the States on these amendments, so I looked up the Hansard Report.

There was no debate, they had been passed without comment.

This, to my mind, was totally discriminatory and I wrote a letter to the Guernsey Press and copied that letter with other comments to all Guernsey deputies. I received only five replies from deputies. Not a word from Treasury and Resources.

None of the five who had replied realised the significance of the tax amendments they had passed. Four offered to look into it and it was left that two would make enquiries.

The enquiries produced a two-page document from, I believe, Income Tax purely setting out the direction they had intended going and comparing similar taxation in Jersey, the UK and the Isle of Man.

All three operate different systems which cannot be compared directly with Guernsey's and, in any case, Guernsey should be looking at its own situation and system as long as it doesn't discriminate. This particular part of these tax amendments, in my opinion, does discriminate and would not stand up to close inspection having seen the scenario that our married couple, in their 80s with the wife an invalid, are having to endure.

How many other pensioners is this likely to affect in the future?

The statement finished: There are currently no intentions to review this recent policy change and reinstate entitlement to a married person's allowance to non-residents.

Is this how Guernsey intends treating its pensioners in the future?

This should be sorted sooner than later.

I thank the deputies who were prepared to answer my queries and take them further, and another for responding.

I sincerely hope that Treasury and Resources takes another careful look at this amendment.

GARY BLANCHFORD

gblanchford@cwgsy.net