Social Security Scheme (letter)
1942 1942 1940s 2 pages Sir W. BEVERIDGE. Dear Sir, Social Security Scheme. I have tried to appease my wrath every day since the publication of the above scheme, by counting ten over and over again, but I have not succeeded. After the adulation you are receiving this criticism may seem frivolous,...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Institution: | MCR - The Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick |
| Language: | English English |
| Published: |
[1942?]
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10796/2E6A1ECF-8350-4F10-B658-A709230EAC3F http://hdl.handle.net/10796/3ADF05FB-D460-4B19-889C-E8BAB7199495 |
| Summary: | 1942
1942
1940s
2 pages
Sir W. BEVERIDGE. Dear Sir, Social Security Scheme. I have tried to appease my wrath every day since the publication of the above scheme, by counting ten over and over again, but I have not succeeded. After the adulation you are receiving this criticism may seem frivolous, but at least it is my sad reflection on your scheme, from which I expected so much. You are certainly to be sympathised with if your remit circumscribed you to be dominated by the three apparently immutable economic laws. First. "Declaration that want could have been abolished before the war by a distribution of income within the wage-earning classes, without touching any of the wealthier classes. Sir William says that the plan for social security would establish a national minimum above which prosperity can grow." Question. How can prosperity grow under an unequal class distribution of the national dividend? Second. ''By a double (?) redistribution of income through social insurance and childrens allowances, want, as defined in the social surveys, could have been abolished in Britain before the present war. The income available to the British people was ample for such a purpose.'' Question. Is this the iron law of the Wages Fund? (The return to labour is static, but the return to Rent, Interest and Profit is not.) Third, "Press Conference. Asked by a journalist whether the proposed 3/3d contribution from Employers was not unduly high." The first part of Sir William's answer is purile sentiment. The real answer is in the second part, "On the whole he thought that 3/3d was a very small part of the total cost of production. He had no doubt that some employers would put up an argument that somebody else should pay, but that somebody else would be the taxpayer." As/
292/150.5/5/236 |
|---|---|
| Physical Description: | TEXT |