FAMILY ALLOWANCES

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 107, 2 November 1937, Page 8

FAMILY ALLOWANCES

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I have noticed several references in your paper to the shame of taxing people with large families, and recently there was reference to a, family living on £4 12s a week with 10 children. Well, this family is no doubt in distressing circumstances, but ( it is not in such a dreadful position as are some women with families of seven children (as in my case) with a hus-j band on sustenance getting £3 3s, out] of which half of that sum goes in our rent. We are not given any family allowance at all, as my husband did a few months' work, and being a tradesman his earnings together with sustenance brought our weekly total to £4 12s a week. This is over the maximum allowed certainly, but with the increased cost of living at present and with only £3 3s now and no family allowance for 12 months the case is worse than the distressing case at Auckland. Here is another side of the question which has been overlooked. The tax on my husband's wages was all counted in with income though we have really not received the money. The tax paid out of our income was £9 2s. We did not handle this sum, but this was not taken into consideration when the average weekly income was reckoned with regard.to a claim for an allowance., I am told on inquiry that next year the Government is going to do something about this; but in the meantime our children have no clothes and nowhere to get any and have insufficient food. They never) get an orange and have not got sufficient milk as I can only afford two quarts a day for 10 people. Why dons not some organisation club together and let us buy some clothes and boots and blankets, sheets, etc., as a small sum each week to be stopped out of the sustenance?—l am, etc..

MOTHER.