MINISTERIAL CONTRASTS

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVI, Issue 5, 6 July 1943, Page 4

MINISTERIAL CONTRASTS

Sir,—Mr. J. D. Sievwright's letter in Friday's issue of th "Evening Post" makes it clear that Mr. Nordmeyer slipped badly when he stated in the House of Representatives that: "It was never intended that the amount of the Social Security tax Is in the £, plus the annual levy, should cover the whole cost." However, it is very evident if durinp the past year with a record aggregate private income of £260,000,000 it was necessary to take from the Consolidated Fund £3,800,000 to bolster up Social Security after the war when the aggregate income falls back to normal (which, taking the best full pre-war year, was £185,800,000), Mr. John Taxpayer must make ready to dive still more deeply into his imaginary bottomless purse. Much could be said regarding the wild statements made when Social Security was placed before the electors, and it will perhaps not come amiss to contradict the statement made in the House of Representatives during the Address-in-Reply Debate that the report on Social Insurance and Allied Services by Sir William Beveridge is based on the New Zealand plan. Only in the matter of the transition period for pensions is there the slightest resemblance, and it would require a much over-developed imagination to attempt to prove otherwise.—l am, etc.. H. E. CHILDS.