from Barbara Allen "Should family allowances and housing subsidies be paid" asked Mr. Gunter last Saturday, "to those whose financial position makes them unnecessary? Or alternatively should not the available resources be concentrated on those in greatest need?" Thus Mr. Gunter argues the case for the extension of the means test. We already have the means test operated by the Supplementary Benefits Commission (national assistance board) with the indignities of constant review and the threat of imprisonment for fraud should one forget to mention a rent or rates rebate, a child starting work or any of the minor fluctuations of all incomes, Then there is the constant round of applications for special needs grant (if on assistance) for free school meals, for free welfare foods, for free school uniform, for rents rebate, for rates rebate and so on assuming of course that you know that you are entitled to all these, As recent surveys have shown the majority of people entitled to such help do not apply. Thus I can only presume that Mr. Gunter is preparing the way for the Government to introduce the means test into yet other areas of social security and it is most significant that he mentioned family allowances. In a recent Government Report "Circumstances of Families" it was revealed that over half-million children were living in families whose income was less than the present level of supplementary benefits and that the majority, 410,000, came from families where the father was in full time work. Also contrary to popular belief ยง rds. of these families had three children or less, This is the problem the Government is faced with and surely the only answer is a national minimum wage and adequate family allowances. There is no sign of the Government enforcing a national minimum wage and it looks as if the Government will argue that the only way of giving adequate family allowances is by a means test, This is simply not true. Already the better off family gets about 30/- per week per child in tax relief and family allowance, The Child Poverty Action Group has worked out that if income tax relief for children was abolished and everybody had higher family allowances the better off family would lose nothing and the poor family would gain an adequate family allowance at no extra cost to the government, By this means allowances could be graded as follows; according to the age of the child:
Under 21. yeas s<isssisdsaneneewawvss vomi, RAL
11-16 WN apeupenspeens tas ndekse axe FOTO
Over 16 (in full time education) ........ 32/6 Also the"first child would be included but at slightly lower rates - 6/6d less for each age group, This allowance would help the one-child family, including many unsupported mothers", By this means the Government could have given help where it is needed without a means test. But it has not because the Inland Revenue opposed it and because it meant higher taxes and higher public expenditure - the two great sins - even though nobody would be worse off and many would be better off. Surely if the Government could sell a wage freeze to the country they could sell this very fair scheme. But instead the richer are still going to get their tax relief and family allowance which are to be raised by 7/- next April. This mean that they will still be getting more allowances from the Government than the poorer family and the 7/- increase will only lift some of the families out of poverty. Therefore we must oppose the extension of the means test, and its indignities and press for a minimum wage and adequate child allowances that equal out between all classes,