THEN AND NOW

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 117, 20 May 1939, Page 10

THEN AND NOW

~ WAR PENSIONS

UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY

IS POSITION FAIR?

i Are returned soldier pensioners and their dependants going to be as well | off under Social Security as they have been in the past, or are the compensations allowed for .their war losses to be swallowed up in the general fund? is a question that is occupying the minds of many returned men. The question has been, and will continue to be, discussed whenever returned soldiers meet, and there appears to be a probability that protests will be made from all over the country. If it is presumed ttiat the, disabled soldier has been pensioned in the same. sense.as the worker who is no longer of use industrially because of advancing years, it must be admitted that the returned soldier is the better off, but if the soldier who received an injury;• on active service has been paid compensation for his loss, should that compensation cease in whole or in part when Social Security payments begin?, Returned soldiers argue that war pensions must be regarded as compensation as they are paid irrespective of the private income of the recipient. For instance, a man may be. earning £1000 or more a year, but will still be paid 30s a week if he lost a leg in the war. PAYMENTS COMPARED. Taking the standpoint that returned soldiers who lost limbs or were otherwise maimed have been paid compensation, many men Claim that the Social Security Act will reduce that compensation. In the case of a man who was> totally disabled in the war £2 a week has been paid for the disability, if the man is married he receives £1 a week for his wife, and may receive .£1 10s : as an economic pension, £4 10s in all. On the other hand, the. man of sixty; who did nothing in the war may received £1 10s as age benefit and -a similar sum for his wife if .she. is also sixty years of age, and the couple may; ] have an income of"£l a week, a total i of £4 in all. Putting the best'possible; ] construction on this, returned' soldiers say, the disabled man's wife, is being paid 10s a week less than the woman ; drawing an age benefit, but if the pension is being paid as compensationthe returned soldier over sixty is 30s short because of the 10s plus the &V the other man is allowed to ; earn. In. other words the disabled man has his compensation reduced from £2 to 10s a week; a poor retur.. for going through the best years of his life without limbs, or eyes, or hopelessly crippled in some

other way,

WIDOWED MOTHERS.

Returned soldiers express the opinion that the Social Security Act also reacts detrimentally to war widows and widowed mothers of deceased soldiers. In the case of a widow 50 per cent, dependent on a son who was killed in the war, 15s a week has been paid as pension, and the old-age pension was paid in addition, making £1 17s 6d in aIL From April 1 other old age pensioners have been paid an additional 7s 6d a week, but widows draw* ing war pensions have had no increase* If others are entitled to an, increase, 1 and to have £1 a week other income., as well, are not widows who lost their" sons over twenty years ago also en.* titled to something more? is the question asked. .-* .- . -The'following case has been stated by one returned soldier:—A • mother who was assisted by her son lost that son in the war, and has been receiving 15s as war pension and 22s ,6d old age pension, or £1 17s 6d a week. Another mother whose son did not go to the war, but who assisted her and also provided her with a home, now receives £1 10s a week. Obviously, said this . returned soldier, the mother who lost her son in France is much worse oft i than the other woman who has a home i rent free and gets a little assistance 'from her son.

The Social Security provisions had definitely put returned soldiers and j their dependants in a relatively worse position than they, occupied previously, another returned soldier stated. If pensions for war disabilities were regarded as compensation—and compensation was paid for injuries received in industry—the returned soldier over sixty should receive full age benefit and the^! right to earn £1 a week, but if that were done the cost of pensions and age benefits combined would increase to such an extent that the age benefit would have to be reduced. It was simply a case of the returned \ soldier being reduced in ratio so that those not injured in war could be given more. Returned soldiers in general had neyee been satisfied that their disabled comrades had been fully compensated, and , instead of the position being improved the ratio had been altered to the detriment of the disabled man who was left to meet increasing costs on his former income. .. .■■ ■',"• -. ■ •■--■■