FAMILY ALLOWANCE

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27739, 17 August 1955, Page 7

FAMILY ALLOWANCE

Sir, I mtist remind “Why Grumble?” that my arithmetic was not faulty. I simply did not use arithmetic in my letter. His figures are quite faultless as arithmetic, and as far as they go. He seems to imply that only single persons and persons with children over 16 contribute to the fund. Quite wrong. Everybody pays according to his income at the rate of Is 6d in' the £. The family benefit is a godsend to those on lower wages and salaries (as I know); and if some on higher incomes squander it, that is not the fault of the scheme but of the individual. I repeat what I said in my previous letter: what people pay for they have a right to and social security benefits (including the family benefit) are not a “hand-out” from the Government. So, why grumble?—Yours, etc., A.F.P. August 13, 1955.

Sir, —Labour lost a golden opportunity of putting the social security scheme on a solid foundation when the plan was first established. It should have been obvious that the plain, commonsense thing to do was to pay out of the fund the same amount that was collected—less administrative charges. Had this been done, the need of a “means test” would not have arisen. Nor would it have been necessary to bolster up the' fund by increasingly large amounts from the Consolidated Fund. Now that our primary products are falling in price, the day must come when the social security scheme will have to be overhauled. This will mean a Royal Commission, sitting over a long period, as it is unlikely that Parliament will have the courage to carry out “means test” reforms. —Yours, etc., MEANS TEST. August 16, 1955.