SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 4, 5 July 1938, Page 10

SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Could you,' with the information at your disposal, give a plain statement of the intentions of the Government, embodied in the Social Service Act now before Parliament? ,

The explanation entrusted to Dr. Mcmillan was "put in another way" three tunes and leaves the issue hopelessly befogged. Apparently a. couple of people, described as "aged," may have a home and £1000 or £2000 invested and £1 of income and still draw 30s a week each, provided'the interest on their funds does not exceed £l"a week and so on. What does this all mean in plain language? The interest on £1000 is roughly £1 per week and on £2000 is £2 per week so that this £1 seems to be uselessly introduced.

Dr. McMillan sums up as follows:— "It ..means a guarantees minimum income of J&3 a week tp those who have nothing and a' guaranteed minimum income of £4 a week to those who have £1 a week or more."

Now, following an outcry from those who pay into other funds, Mr. Savage admitted an injustice and promised' to raise the limiting income from £208 to £312, that is from £4 to £6 a week. How then are we to interpret the statement of Dr. McMillan that the social benefit is to be confined to a limit of £4 per week? Can you explain this, or are we to conclude that only the man with less than £4 a week is to benefit. An income of £4 a week, less 30s represents an invest-! ment of £2600 but an income of £6. a week less,3os represents £4600, a very J important difference. What is the real ] limit. —I am, etc., , MIDDLE CLASS' WOK&ER. [Apparently Dr. McMillan was speaking of the original scheme without the extension promised by the Prime Minister. Ed.]