LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32975, 22 July 1972, Page 14

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

(1) Letters to be considered for this column must not exceed ISO words. They should be on only one side of the paper; preferably typewritten, otherwise clearly written in ink; and ample margins and space between lines should be left for convenience in sub-editing. (2) A legible signature and full address—not a P.O. box number — are required whether these are to be printed or not. (3) The correspondent must say whether the letter lias been or is to be submitted elsewhere. (4) The editor cannot return or keep any letter not accepted for printing; nor does he undertake to acknowledge or enter into correspondence concerning letters, although an acknowledgment will be made where this seems to be necessary or helpful. (51 As a general rule, correspondence on news items in other publications, or carried on radio and television, is not acceptable. Justin Cooper—See rule 4 above. M. Petre.—Our critique appears this morning. John Bateman.—No space to discuss protests again just now. Bernard King and others.—Correspondence on cigarettes closed. Janet G. Fenton.—No space to discuss demonstrations again just now. Realist.—We can see no reason to assume anything of the sort. No space to pursue the subject. J. H. Ward.—Discussion of court sentences is seldom useful because it cannot be based on all the information before the courts. Home Town.—We cannot advise you, on the scanty facts. You should be able to find out the purpose of the survey, after which it might be advisable to take legal advice.

unite to see that justice is done before November, 1972. —Yours, etc., ANOTHER THRIFTY MUG. June 27, 1972. [The Minister of Finance (Mr Muldoon) replies: “This letter refers to the reduction in the income exemption from $l3 to $lO a week for age beneficiaries and maintains that the effect of this, combined with the increases in benefit rates of $4 a week for a married couple, represents a net increase in income of only $1 a week. This is not correct. When the income exemption was reduced to $lO a week the method of abating benefit was changed so that income in excess of the exemption now abates the maximum benefit otherwise payable by $1 for $2 up to $25 a week and by $3 for $4 on income in excess of $25 a week. Previously benefits were abated by $3 for $4 of income in excess of the income exemption. The effect of these measures, combined with the substantial increases in benefit rates, is to ensure that no beneficiary suffers financial disadvantage. In the case of a married couple with other income of $l3 a week the net effect of the changes effective from July 5, 1972, will be to increase their combined income from $44 a week to $46 a week. The existing additional exemption of up to $lO4 a year in respect of payments from friendly and like societies still applies.”]