" ALL IN" NATIONAL INSURANCE SCHEME
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—In Mr. Broad's pamphlet describing this Scheme under heading 16, it is stated that the Employers' contribution " will be raised from Is. 3d. for Health and Unemployment Insurance to 2s. 6d. per week, but this increase will be more than met by the decrease or abolition of many charges now incurred " by Employers. I have applied this to an engineer- ing factory, in which I am interested, situated in Glasgow and employing about 600 people of all grades. For the year 1928 the total of the contributions of this firm as employers to National Health and Unemployment Insurance, Workmen's Compensation, Poor Rates, and a private Distress Fund for the relief of workpeople or their dependents in distress amounted to about £2,500, whereas under the Broad scheme at 2s. 6d. per employee per week the amount would have been £3,900. The assessed rental of this firm for 1923 was very high—more than £80 per person employed ; so that the Poor Rates based on that rental are also relatively high.
It would be interesting to know how the rough average of 3s. per week per worker given by Mr. Broad as the present contribution of Employers is arrived at. Why should Employers be singled out to bear such a large proportion of the increase ? Surely, if it is desired to increase employment, these direct taxes on Employers should be reduced and not increased, and an increased tax be levied on those who do not employ- people, or alternatively, a rebate of other taxation given to those who do. The moral and other obligations of- those who employ workpeople are a sufficient burden without adding taxation at a much higher rate than that of other members .of the community.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
