Memorandum on the Beveridge Report
1943-02 1943 1940s 28 pages We do not suggest that subsistence allowance should provide for expenditure on "other items" comparable to that of a family in work, but it is clear that the allowances in the Beveridge Report are too low. It is argued, for example, that "perso...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Institution: | MCR - The Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick |
| Language: | English English |
| Published: |
London : Communist Party of Great Britain
February 1943
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10796/688179C6-8451-481F-9BDA-72890861850F http://hdl.handle.net/10796/D93689F6-1CAC-4673-A476-7CC6A732D53C |
| Summary: | 1943-02
1943
1940s
28 pages
We do not suggest that subsistence allowance should provide for expenditure on "other items" comparable to that of a family in work, but it is clear that the allowances in the Beveridge Report are too low. It is argued, for example, that "persons not working will not have to spend money on travelling to work," ignoring the fact that out-of-work people frequently spend money in travelling in search of work. If we take 13/6 as being the expenditure of two adults on "other items" in an urban working-class household in 1938 and allow for a 25% increase in the cost of living in post-war years, that would bring the expenditure up to 16/10½ per week. We think it is self-evident, therefore, that a much greater allowance for sundry expenditure must be made. With regard to clothing, the report fixes the expenditure on this item at an unnecessarily low level, admitting that this expenditure relates only to "short periods of unemployment and disability during which expenditure on renewals can be postponed." It argues, however, "there should be room for readjustment in such matters as rent or of retrenchment on the margin." In view of the admitted shortage of houses in the immediate post-war years, it is difficult to see how the individual will be able to readjust his rent to a lower level. The Beveridge subsistence scales will, we assume, be the basis for demobilisation benefit in the immediate post-war years, and it will be impossible to defend a too niggardly scale of benefit. We consider that there is a clear case for increasing the proposed benefits by 25 per cent. — that is, 30/- per week for a single man or woman, and 50/- per week for a married couple. We wish to emphasise that these subsistence benefits, while an advance on those now prevailing, are far from securing a moderately decent standard of life. 12
15X/2/103/272 |
|---|---|
| Physical Description: | TEXT |