THE FAMILY BURDEN.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 164, 11 July 1919, Page 2

THE FAMILY BURDEN.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—lt is a recognised fact that the children are a national asset, yet the family man ie "up against it" at every turn. The present-day agitation for increased wages is no solution of the difficulty. Every increase is passed on to the consumer, and it is the family man wiho foots the bill, whilst the single or childless man avoids, by design or otherwise, a fair share of the burden. It would be unreasonable that an employer should be asked to pay each employee on the basis of the family strength in numbers of suck employee—the family man would probably be immediately tabooed —but why should not the State come to the rescue? If., as is freely admitted, the children are a national asset, the State should in all reason contribute to their upkeep. My suggestion is thgjt the State should pay to the legal guardian of each child under the age of fifteen years a weekly allowance of—lf one child in family, 10/ per week; two children in family, 19/ per week; three children in family, 27/ per week; four children in family, 34/ per week; five children in family, 40/ per week; six children in I family, 45/ per week; seven children in 'family, 49/ per week; eight children in I family, 52/ per week; nine children ir ! family, 54/ per week; ten children oi ■ over in family, 55/ per week. Thie I would involve a heavy charge on the I finances of the Dominion, but a source ;of considerable revenue could be ob tamed by bringing all incomes exceedine J £250 per annum (present limit £3iX)l i within the scope of the income tax. Jus ione point more. There should be nc discrimination or class legislation. Employee and employer alike, irrespective of wage or income, should participate ii the scheme. They are all doing theii jbii.—»l Am. etc., I . ' ... . . BAB,