Or te of inflation between now and the end of the year"
This is the major finding of a report on the Government's review of Social Security Benefits just published by the Child Poverty Action Group*. The report divides the poor into five groups. The first consists of retirement and invalidity pensioners. The second is composed of claimants dependent upon what the government These are benefits paid to the sick and the unemployed.
LOW WAGE The third group is of claimants who draw the long term supplementary benefit rates. This group is composed of people over retirement age together with those who are not required to register for work, but who have been drawing supplementary benefit for two years continuously. The fourth group of poor people is made up of claimants drawing the short-term supplementary benefit The final group is composed of low wage earners and their families.
The report points out that the increases due to come into effect in November were calculated on the rate of inflation over the period August 1974 to March 1975. However, on the very day that the Secretary of *For the first time since the depression of the inter-war years the Government is planning real cuts in the living standards of the poor. In 1931 the MacDonald Government proposed an actual cut in benefits. In 1975 the Wilson Government is proposing the same package measures with one difference. Today inflation is disguising the crisis faced by Britain's poor-or one in eight of the entire population. Real cuts in benefits are planned because the November increase will not make up for the State announced the November rates the Government released figures showing that over the past three months the Long term National Insurance Single person Married person Short term National insurance Single person Married couple Long term Supplementary Benefits Single person Married couple Short term Supplementary Benefits Single person Married couple the annual rate of inflation had risen to over 34 per cent.
As the Budget alone will on Healey's own admission add a further 2¾ per cent to the retail price index, the rate of inflation between now and November is unlikely to be less than of inflation as 34 per cent.
must the poor on benefit look forsecurity beneficiaries.
TABLE ONE: Estimated Value of Social Security Benefits in November 1975 Rate in Increased rate in November 11.60 13.30 18.50 21.20 11.10 15.90 18.00 12.00 18.85 21.55 9.60 10.90 17.75 ects of inflation on buying power. months. So for the purpose of working out the value of benefits this November the report takes the annual rate On this basis it finds that 'not only ward to real cuts in their living standards, but the gap between their living standards and those of people on average wages will significantly widen, and this is true of all four groups of social Value in November compared with April 11.08 17.67 9.25 15.00 11.42 17.96 14.80 Table One lists the value of bene fits on the day that they were last increased, in April this year. It also estimates the comparative value of benefits when they are raised in November taking into account the probable effernment has failed to maintain the value of benefits against rising prices.' The same picture emerges wen the value of benefits of the four groupings are measured against average earnings, estimated at £55 per week for April 1975 and £67 per week for November 1975. This information, shows a marked decline in the relative value of benefits.
The report claims one big difference between the fifth group in poverty - the low wage earner and his family - and the other groups. The cuts in living standards of une poverty wage earners - those grossing under £30 a week, the TUC minimum wage - have already come into effect Not surprisingly, Chancellor Healey has hit back at the Child Poverty Action Group's report. His 'anxiety' about the matter has nothing to do with the plight of the poor; he is more concerned with the damaging effect the report could have on the ards. Wilson Government's attempt to get a new and tougher social contract.
TAX FIDDLE *Despite the claims by the Chancellor that 400,000 low wage earners have been taken out of tax, this ignored the fact that over one milhon more low paid workers who were below the tax threshold when Labour came to power in February 1974 are now paying income tax. Moreover, truth." the increased tax burden on the very poorest workers in our community has more than wiped out for most of them the increase in the family allowance which came into effect in .. back to this ?
The argument that in return for restraint on wages by the better organised sections of the working class the social services and the wages of the low paid will be impro ed has once again been exposed as a tissue of lies. The one thing that did give some protection against inflatio to the wages of the low paid - thres old payments- has been abolished the Labour Government.
SLIDING SCALE
The demand for 'nil-norm' thres olds, based on a working class costliving index, giving automatic and complete protection against inflati to all working class incomes, in rid ition to normal wage bargaining, wa passed at the recent Scottish Trade Union Congress. If acted on it could unite low paid and higher paid, emp oyed and unemployed, in a common struggle against the Labour Government's attempts to cu* living stand As the CPAG report concludes: 'A year ago the Prime Minister said that the burdens which would have to be borne during the present econ omic crisis would be placed on those with the broadst shoulders. Likewis when assuring the review of benefits the Secretary of State for Social Ser vices said that it would protect the poor from the effects of inflation. Nothing could be further from the James Drake *The Poor and the Crisis - Child Pov erty Action Group, 1 Macklin Street London WC2B SH