COST OF LIVING

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27410, 24 July 1954, Page 3

COST OF LIVING

Sir, —So “60 Years a Worker” is now implicitly admitting a rise in the cost of living, which he refused to do in another discussion. At least he would not recognise that the cost of living had outstripped the rise in wages, which it has, despite * his false figures. Of course, subsidies are necessary. At present they are the only way to get a few qf the goods and services beyond a bare subsistence into the hands of the workers who produced those same goods and services. Why does not “60 Years a Worker” come out frankly with the proposition that the worker should receive only a bare living, so that people with money can receive more money? On the other hand, why prostitute what talents he has for the people who want a still wider gap between rich and poor.—Yours, etc., A.F.P. July 23, 1954.

Sir,—On reading “40 Years a Worker’s” letter tonight, I wonder at the nom-de-plume.. It seeing to me it should be four years. Certainly the cost of living increased 56 per cent. < in the Labour Party’s 14 years of office. < When it came into power everything 1 was very cheap, but the working man J had very little money, if any, to live on. Regarding the national debt, has ' he forgotten there was a war on, with j our manpower overseas? Production ( went down in some fields; hence the I ■ ; ,

apple and pear boards, etc., to stop the pricef rocketing through supplies being short. The pledge of the Sojial Credit Party to abolish taxes, etc., sounds good, but don’t forget Mr Holland’s pledge about the pound.—Yours. etc., 17 YEARS A WORKER. July 23, 1954.