SUSTENANCE PAY

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21960, 8 December 1936, Page 13

SUSTENANCE PAY

TO THE EDITOR UP THE PRESS Sir,-In view of the recently-pub-lished announcement that sustenance men arc to receive an increase to the amount of Os a week for married men and 3s a week for single men. 1 am at a loss to understand how the system operates, so that one who is married receives benefit For instance. I sm married, and formerly was in re-

eeipt of £2 Is a week sustenance, I in addition to which my declared in- j come was £1 a week, a total of £3 j Is a week. Under the present rate of sustenance, in addition to £1 a week earning, my total should be increased to £3 7s a week. It seems that in order to receive £2 7s sustenance my earnings are to be limited to 15s a week, so my total is £3 2s, Is above my previous total. This, to my mind, is an increase in sustenance, certainly, but unfair and devoid f beneficial result. 1 scarcely think the Government meant this rule to apply, and am wondering if its instructions are being misinterpreted by the local bureau. —Yours, etc.. CHRISTMAS BONUS. December 4. 1936. (When this letter was referred to Mr M. Ross, he said that the maximum permissible income remained the same as formerly, although the sustenance rave had been increased. !