BUDGET PROPOSALS.

Evening Star, Issue 22413, 10 August 1936, Page 13

BUDGET PROPOSALS.

TO Til* EDITOR. Sir, —Having listened attentively to the Minister of Finance during his Budget statement on Tuesday evening, I ivish to comment on some of the inconsistencies of the Budget proposals, as compared l with past legislation and promises. On June 1 the new rates of pay of relief Avorkers came into force, and tin's rate gave a single man a sustenance payment of 17s a AA r eek. Inis itself was a flat contradiction of Mr Savage’s pre-election speech in _ the local Town Hall Avhcn he said, inter alia, that “ no man can live on less than £2 week.” Hoavca’ct, the most obvious absurdity lies in the fact that, according to Mr Nash, old-age women pensioners are iaoav to _ receive £1 a week. I agree with the idea of increasing pensions; m fact, I maintain that even the aacav scale is insufficient. But I do say that if the Government deems it Avise to grant a woman £1 a week it is crass stupidity to grant a man only 17s. Again, a man Avith three children who is unable to Avork oAving to physical or medical debility will receive £3 a week, being £1 for the man, 10s for the Avife, and 10s for each child. Once more it is_ seen that one class of unfit man Avill receive £l, while the unfit man on sustenance avill receive’ only 17s. An ordinary relief worker AA’ith three children at present receives £2 16s. so it seems that although the needs of an invalid s children are computed at 10s a woek for each child, the children of a fit man only require 8s Bcl a head—a bib ot circs distinction amongst even the poorest people, surely. Then if these sums are considered to be sufficieu lor a man or a family, it must be extravagance to pay M.P.s any more

than they would receive according to this scale. Can anyone say why the Government should fix the living standard of a woman pensioner at £62 per annum and that of the Director of Broadcasting at £1,500? Does this represent the difference in the prices of mincemeat and turkey? A class of person who seems to have been entirely overlooked is the widow who is not old enough to be eligible for the old age pension. In the case of a woman who becomes a widow, say, at the age of 54. how does the Government propose that she should live? She may have absolutely no other source of income, be considered too old to work, and be in effect destitute. Yet in Mr Nash’s comprehensive surrey no provision was made for such a person. Mr Savage, Mr Nash, and other Labour candidates for the last election must have had a very shrewd idea of the revenue and resources of the Dominion, together with the necessary expenditure. They were virtually able to know to what extent they would be able to increase social services and benefits, such as pensions, relief rates, etc., yet, in spite of this knowledge, they inferred that these increases would be considerably m excess of what _ are now proposed. Experience is proving that, except m the matter of courtesy and explicitness, qualities in which present Cabinet members abound, our present Government is exactly similar to previous ones. They are going to pay a guaranteed price to fanners for dairy produce mainly to stimulate industry, yet unless they are absolutely orthodox economists they must realise that unless the working'class is guaranteed a proper living standard, neither trade nor industry can be stimulated.—l am, etc., I'. M'Comish. August 8.