Age benefit

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33577, 4 July 1974, Page 14

Age benefit

Sir, — A person is entitled to earn $l3 a week or $676 annually, before the benefit is affected. This amount is referred to, by the Social Welfare Department, as an "exemption,” then deducted from income above the basic benefit rate, $2116 at present The remainder, referred to as "excess income” is then subject to deductions, $1 out of every $2 earned up to $25 a week and then $3 out of every $4

beyond this. Are the words “exemption” and “deduction” treated as meaning the same thing? If not, as in income tax, then why should the exemption of $676 be : counted as part of the grad- , uated deductions? Should not the deductions apply to excess income only? i.e. after the exemption has been subtracted from a person’s i gross or “chargeable” in- , come? If not, then surely the • term “exemption” is wrong and age beneficiaries are being misled. — Yours, etc., WHO IS WRONG? June 26, 1974. [Mr C. L. Waters, assistant director of the Departi ment of Social Welfare, re- ! plies: “The Social Security ■ Act provides that the maxi- : mum benefit shall be “dii minished by $l.OO for every I complete $2.00 of the total ■ annual income in excess of i $676.00 a year but not in exi cess of $1300.00 a year, and I by $3.00 for every complete • $4.00 of total annual income ■ in excess of $1300.00 a year.” i Possibly the word “exemption” is misleading. The I words “allowable income” • are more commonly used ■ within the department. The ■ method of assessing the i amount of benefit has no ■ relevance to an income tax ; assessment. Your correspondent Will be happy to i know that the “allowable ini come” has been increased to t $884.00 per annum from July • 3.”] . i