SOCIAL SECURITY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 152, 30 June 1939, Page 6

SOCIAL SECURITY.

THE FAMILY ALLOWANCES.

(To the Editor.)

'•Family of Six"' seem* to be having the same trouble as ] am, ;iu<l I would like to find out a few things myself with regard to family allowance benefits. ] have six ehildren. and under the social security {'!) scheme a man and wife with six children are entitled to £3 5/ per week. This is an increase on the sustenance scheme, which allowed £2 19/. Previous to the social security scheme the family allowance was 2/ weekly for each child, the first two, of course, not being allowed for, making 8/ weekly in all. bringing the total tip to £3 7/. Now the family allowance has also 'been increased, as a matter of fact doubled, but the lt>/ per week is deducted from the £3 '■>/, leaving £2 9/ paid weekly and paying the family allowance monthly. Thus 2/ weekly is lost by the introduction of social security. I would like to know why recipients of social security benefit?- fhould have their family allowance deducted while men working and receiving £.3 per week can still draw the extra without being penalised. The workers are being faxed an extra 50 per cent on their earnings, yet the luckless fellow on sustenance receiver less than before, (an this be explained'/ And does Ihe general public know that this condition exists: If not, it is time they were made aware of this fact, because the families of the unemployed are certainly worse off under the social security scheme than they were before owing to the continual increase in the cost of living, brought about by increased taxation. Does not. the man receiving less than £5 per week need the family benefit more than his working friend'/ "Family of Six.'' von have my deepest sympathy. FAMILY OF EIGHT.