Social Security

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31841, 20 November 1968, Page 16

Social Security

( Sir, —With surprise and ; delight I read that a voice has at last been raised in (Parliament about the plight of (social security beneficiaries ;in this country. We have recently seen the members I of that House vote themselves a handsome increase; in fact, (one member clearly states he must do other work to enable him to live in the manner in ■which he is accustomed. The pensioners, even if able, are (not allowed this privilege. (They cannot strike, wave ban(ners, or demand. They must go cap in hand and beg for (what should be their just reward for a lifetime of lab(our. One member stated it [would cost the taxpayers a large amount to grant an increase in benefits. May 1 tell him that we also pay our share (small though it maybe) in rates and taxes and increased cost of living?— Yours, etc., SIXTY-NINE. November 16, 1968. Sir,—ln reply to “Bethune,” if the act were amended regarding minimum age by 1972, those aged 60 would have been in their midtwenties when the depression ended. They will have had about 35 years, and will have another five to the suggested new threshold of 65, in which to be thrifty. Totalitarianminded Labour supporters probably prefer imposition of thrift by an increased social security tax, offset by the usual illusion of the general wage order increases they encourage.—Yours, etc.,

A. B. CEDARIAN. November 19, 1968.