FAMILY ALLOWANCES.

Evening Star, Issue 19274, 12 June 1926, Page 6

FAMILY ALLOWANCES.

I'lvKit since the Great War, when higher pay was given to married „ men and their wives drew allotments, the question of differential pay for married and single has been attracting more and more attention. The old demand for the living wage, lor instance, is being superseded by one for a “ living income.” These words were actually inserted in the programme of the British Independent Labor Party at its recent congress, with a demand for a children’s allowance of 5s a week for every child, to bo paid by the State out of direct taxation to every mother. The scheme generally being put forward is in the direction of a system of pooling, tlirough which the individual wageearner would receive an allowance in respect of his or her children at the expense of those without children. The suggestion of some such scheme by the Coal Commission, whose report was approved by the Imperial Parliament, has caused the matter to pass rapidly from the mere academic to tho political platform. A powerful organisation in Great Britain is working to this end under tho leadership of Miss Eleanor Rathhone, whose book, ‘ Tho Disinherited Family,’ is certainly a careful study of the whole subject. fn our own dominion various women’s organisations are also studying this book, and the Prime Minister has indicated tho possibility of legislation in a similar direction. The consequences of such an innovation in industry might be considerable and far-reaching.

lii ■ a recent article the ‘ Manchester Guardian’ carefully weighs the pros and cons of a system of pooling of wages to produce a better apportionment of earnings to needs. It points out that many wage-earners have dependents other than wife or children, which may cause them to postpone or delay marriage. Provision would need to be made for these. Then again many people will maintain that such a scheme would tend to the removal of “ prudential restraint,” and lead to over-population. To quote: "Much will depend on the way the allowance should be calculated. It would certainly seem an abuse that, to put it coarsely, the bringing of children into the world should be made a profitable industry. But this would only bo the case if the allowance for the child were put above its normal cost, and should be mado with no regard to the total number of the family. The allowance might bo modest, and there might well .be a limit. There is further the question whether it is the economic cost of the child or the burden on the mother, not only of child-bearing, but also of responsibility for the child, which is the main factor in the limitation of the family, and on this there is room for uncertainty. What is more certain is that improvement in material well-being is to-day the general condition of family limitation. It is therefore not at all clear that the scheme would have the effect, hoped or feared, of increasing population.” The ‘ Guardian ’ considers that a. scheme should be national rather than industrial, ns the appeal is reaJly to the community as a whole. The question then naturally arises, however, if the community is to help parents, has it nob a right to demand an assurance that the trusb is being duly executed? Would this load to increased State supervision of family life? Would it load to a demand for further control of marriage on eugenic grounds? These questions show how wide the ramifications of family allowances are. It is also pointed out that in many cases tho single man saves with a view to marriage—indeed, that is tho only way he can manage to do it. In other words, he is potentially a parent already, should bo paid as such, and would bo ill-used if treated purely as a bachelor. Possibly this question, “ Are you saving for marriage?” should have been added to the Now Zealand census paper, ia order that tho income figures might bo adequately classified.