Letters / Odd logic
In your editorial (A hardship scheme for the working poor; SN, 10/12/14) you highlight Item 3.5 of the Shetland Charitable Trust report:
” ‘[It should also be noted that] the government sets benefits at a level to ensure that individuals have a minimum standard of living.’ Which is true, in theory.”
The question is: how low in practice can the government allow that minimum standard to descend?
With the present government, most people I know are saying: “How much lower can the government sink in its dealings with the poor, and can the poor sink any lower? (‘Sink’ is the operative word here!)
If SCT had to increase the Financial Hardship Scheme budget of £100,000 by over 50% to accommodate all those who were deemed to be eligible, that possibly indicates that the minimum standard of living is too low too for a substantial number of pensioners – certainly for a much greater number than originally estimated.
The SCT report also says (2.2 & 2.3) that the Christmas Bonus scheme was placed under review in June 2013 and that its replacement, the FHS, would be closed to new applicants while the scheme was under review.
Now the scheme “discriminates against individuals as it is closed to new applicants.”
There is some odd logic at work here. What has happened to the review? Or can this report of a ‘callous couple of sides of A4’ really be the outcome of the review?
James Mackenzie
The Lea
Tresta
Become a member of Shetland News
Shetland News is asking its many readers to consider paying for membership to get additional features and services: -
- Remove non-local ads;
- Bookmark posts to read later;
- Exclusive curated weekly newsletter;
- Hide membership messages;
- Comments open for discussion.
If you appreciate what we do and feel strongly about impartial local journalism, then please become a member of Shetland News by either making a single payment, or setting up a monthly, quarterly or yearly subscription.
Already a member? Sign in to hide this message.
