AGE BENEFIT

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25551, 20 July 1948, Page 8

AGE BENEFIT

Sir, —If age beneficiaries are permitted an allowance of 25s a week for a boarder before a 10 per cent, charge to assess income is made, why does the beneficiary pay “emergency tax” on an amount over £1 a week for the same boarder? Surely there should be one definition to cover the value of board for all purposes, whether as an allowance, a means test or for assessing tax. Also, could you enlighten many beneficiaries on the position of their benefit when they become inmates of a hospital. Is it reduced?— Yours, etc., WHY? July 12, 1948. [The correspondent should submit his first question direct to the Land and Income Tax Department. The following reply to the second question has been made by the district registrar of Social Security (Mr E. A. Selman): “Section 72 (1) of the Social Security Act, 1938, provides that no benefit is payable as of right in respect of any period during which a beneficiary is an inmate of a public institution or is in receipt of a hospital benefit under Part 111 of the act, but the Social Security Commission is empowered to pay the whole or such part of the benefit as jf thinks fit. The practice is. in the case of sickness benefit, for the beneficiary to be notified before the end of the first four weeks in a public hospital, and, in the case of age or other monthly benefits, before the end of a period up to two calendar months, that a reduction to £39 per annum (15s per week) will be made from a specified date, but that representations for continuance of benefit at the full rate or at any other rate higher than £39 per annum will receive full consideration. In general, no notification is made until the beneficiary, in the case of sickness benefit, has been in hospital for at least four complete weeks, and in the case of age benefit, etc., before the end of the second complete calendar month, nor where the beneficiary is married or for other reasons is maintaining a home. A reduction is not made in respect of the week or month of admission or discharge, nor where the beneficiary is admitted to a private hospital, or is in receipt of family benefit or universal superannuation. No benefit is payable when a beneficiary is admitted to a mental hospital.”] Sir, —I fully endorse “Over Seventy’s” views about the age benefit. He is not far wrong, in that there will be no benefits for anybody if this Government is in much longer. I am well over 70, in fact bordering on 80. We want more producers on the land. This country is a farm-producing country. and we want the 44-hour week, u our hours would not hurt the workers one bit, in fact, would be better tor their health. It is quite true we lave so much to pay, for so little; it is really only worth 6s 8d at the present iay, and we have to pay four times as auch for what we buy. I hope they •ill get their running shoes soon.— Yours, etc., NEAR EIGHTY. July 16, 1948. » Sir,—l would again remind “Over Seventy” that my letter referred to correspondents belittling the age benefit, and not to his particular query. Regarding his opinion of no security for anyone if Labour remains in power, he must indeed have a hopeful nature if he sees any suggestion of improvement under an administration consisting of Mr Holland and Co. Present-day statements by interests supporting Mr Holland only emphasise the proof given by past events regarding such illusions. As to never paying so much for so little, I know many persons, probably older than “Over Seventy,” in receipt of the age benefit, who express an entirely different view from his. The average man reaching the age of 60, who has been drawing ruling wages over the last 12 years, should today be in a position far from destitute on receiving the benefit. If not, who is to blame?—Yours, etc., FAIR PLAY. July 12, 1948. Sir, —Your correspondent “Over Seventy” questions the justice of the application of universal superannuation, and I think rightly so. When Labour was in opposition its members used to talk of class legislation and said that the capitalist class was riding on the bdeks of the workers. Now the Labour Government fixes the old age pension at £2 5s a week for the worker who produces the wealth; and its members vote themselves £8 a week. Where is the class legislation they used to condemn?—Yours, etc., ANOTHER SEVENTY. July 19, 1948. -