I'd always thought that the National Insurance scheme started after the end of the war, with the Beveridge Report. It turns out I was wrong. I've recently bought on e-bay some wartime stuff, including some National Health & Pensions Insurance cards. The earliest reference I can find to this scheme is 1927 & it seems it was compulsory if you earned less than £250 p.a. If you earned more, you could make voluntary contributions.
The attached scans give an insight into the wartime life of Mr. Hugh T. Swinstead. As I read it, he became a "man" (I'm guessing that was age 16 years)on 2/1/1939. He then worked & paid contributions until week 26 of 1940, when he went into the forces. He was de-mobbed in week 35 of 1946 & went back to work. Glad to see he survived the war.
Sorry this isn't local history, but the local history would have been the same.
it was compulsory if you earned less than £250 p.a. If you earned more, you could make voluntary contributions.
Thats a bit crap isn't it?!
Looks like it's always been the way - take more money from the poor than from the rich.
Thanks for posting
Autowirral.co.uk - The Northwest's Biggest forum of Motoring Enthusiasts. Cruisewirral.com - The Northwest's Biggest forum of Modified Car Enthusiasts.
Looks like it's always been the way - take more money from the poor than from the rich.
Thanks for posting
Seems a fair scheme to me, Joe. If you earned over £250 & didn't contribute, you had to pay your own medical bills; doctor, hospital, dentist, medicines. Also, the contribution covered the state pension. What I don't know & am trying to find out is whether the man's contribution covered his wife & kids too. To put the figures into context, £250 in 1939 = £11,100 in 2007 and the contribution of 1s-8d = £3.70 in 2007. Looking at the figures, & balancing the risk, I think I'd choose to be in the scheme even if I earned more than £250.
Quick update. It seems that Lloyd George introduced National Health Insurance in 1911. I'm really curious to learn more about this scheme, if anyone can give me a lead.
Looks like it's always been the way - take more money from the poor than from the rich.
Thanks for posting
Seems a fair scheme to me, Joe. If you earned over £250 & didn't contribute, you had to pay your own medical bills; doctor, hospital, dentist, medicines. Also, the contribution covered the state pension. What I don't know & am trying to find out is whether the man's contribution covered his wife & kids too. To put the figures into context, £250 in 1939 = £11,100 in 2007 and the contribution of 1s-8d = £3.70 in 2007. Looking at the figures, & balancing the risk, I think I'd choose to be in the scheme even if I earned more than £250.
Cheers, Chris.
- just a bit weird how it was compulsary for people who were the lowest earners.
just a bit weird how it was compulsary for people who were the lowest earners.
Yeah, point taken Matt, but wasn't it ever thus? the poor don't know what's good for them, so they have to be forced.
Thats a bit harsh tbh; id say the poor know much better than the rich as a result of their situation; a poor person is less likely to be ripped off and more likely to spot a bargain than a rich person who does not know the value of money (at least certainly not as much as someone with limited money).
- just a bit weird how it was compulsary for people who were the lowest earners.![[Linked Image]](http://photowirral.com/newsig.jpg)
