Pension Ledgers and Index Cards

[hen190782]

Good Afternoon

This has probably been asked before, so please excuse me if that is the case ...

Where there is a figure in the Child column on the reverse of a pension card, is this the rate per child or is the amount for all the qualifying dependants under the age of 16?

In the attached example, 7/1 (later 14/2) seems a bit high for each of the four children.

Thanks in advance,

Nigel

[Matlock1418]

Would potentially be handy to know the man's details, however ...

I believe the children's amount visible would be the total payable for all the children together.

I don't have the exact rates applicable in 1920-22 - the general principle was that the man's pension and children's allowances would be treated as a percentage of the potential maximum corresponding to the disablement rate.

But I think the 1919 RW was still being applied - The RW 1919 gave the man's pension 100% rate as 40/- pw [for a pension Class V/Private soldier] so 20% disablement would be 8/- and 40% would be 16/- pw [as we can see]

For the children there were two differing schedules dependant upon the terms of the application of the preceding Article in the RW - Unfortunately I don't have the full 1919 RW and from my fragment of it I can't get the 20% and 40% rate arithmetic to square with 7/1 pw and 14/2 pw at the moment.  ???  Perhaps @ss002d6252 will be able to assist us.

M

Edited 1 February , 2023 by Matlock1418
clarify man's rate

[hen190782]

This is the front of the pension card, if it helps.

10 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Would potentially be handy to know the man's details, however ...

I believe the children's amount visible would be the total payable for all the children together.

I don't have the exact rates applicable in 1920-22 - the general principle was that the man's pension and children's allowances would be treated as a percentage of the potential maximum corresponding to the disablement rate.

But I think the 1919 RW was still being applied - The RW 1919 gave the man's pension 100% rate as 40/- pw so 20% disablement would be 8/- and 40% would be 16/- pw [as we can see]

For the children there were two differing schedules dependant upon the terms of the application of the preceding Article in the RW - Unfortunately I don't have the full 1919 RW and from my fragment of it I can't get the 20% and 40% rate arithmetic to square with 7/1 pw and 14/2 pw at the moment.  ???  Perhaps @ss002d6252 will be able to assist us.

M

Thanks, Matlock1418, front of pension card now posted.

[Matlock1418]

5 minutes ago, hen190782 said:

This is the front of the pension card, if it helps.

Thanks - at least it confirms a Class V /  Private [incl LCpl] soldier

Still trying to work on the children's rates but still the sums don't work for me! 

M

Edited 1 February , 2023 by Matlock1418

[Matlock1418]

John William NOLAN, 726, RAMC seems to have made until 3.10.63 when he died, thereafter his widow, Julia Anna, made her widow's claim

I'm wondering if I have to earlier include something in his disablement pension to cover her too. ??? 

It rather looks like the W + 4 on the reverse does suggest she needs to be incorporated in my calcs. [And I have already been trying to include something in them for her] but still ???????  14/2 pw as 40% = 35/6 pw gross  So how to get that gross figure ???????

M

Edited 1 February , 2023 by Matlock1418

[hen190782]

6 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

John William NOLAN, 726, RAMC seems to have made until 3.10.63 when he died, thereafter his widow, Julia Anna, made her widow's claim

I'm wondering if I have to earlier include something in his disablement pension to cover her too. ??? 

It rather looks like the W + 4 on the reverse does suggest she needs to be incorporated in my calcs. [And I have already been trying to include something in them for her] but still ???????  14/2 pw as 40% = 35/5 pw gross  So how to get that gross figure ???????

M

All beyond me, mate ;-) 

[ss002d6252]

I can't offer a certain answer, but there's a possibility that matches, arithmetically.

The 1919 RW for 20% disabled under Article 1 would be 8s.

Under Article 1A an additional allowance of 10s was made for the wife of a disabled man, if she qualified under the specific rules of the article. These amounts were however paid proportional to the level of disability.

For children, if no allowance under article 1A then 10s for a 1st child, 7s6d for a 2nd and then 6s. If there was an allowance under 1A then 7s 6d, 6d and 6d respectively. These amounts were however paid proportional to the level of disability.

The 7s 1d would be 85d.

So for 4 children, with no allowance, 29s 6d gross, at 20% this would be 71d, 5s 11d
So for 4 children, with allowance, 25s 6d gross, at 20% this would be 61d, 5s 1d

We have a shortfall of either 14d, 1s 2d, or 24d, 2s.

If we assume his wife did qualify, then it would be 10s at 20% which gives us 24d, 2s. Add this to the child allowance of 61d, 5s 1d, and we get the 85d, 7s 1d.

I would suggest that the w + 4 means wife's allowance and 4 children to take into account.

This also leads neatly to the 40% rate being double the 20% rate.

Craig

 

[hen190782]

7 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

I can't offer a certain answer, but there's a possibility that matches, arithmetically.

The 1919 RW for 20% disabled under Article 1 would be 8s.

Under Article 1A an additional allowance of 10s was made for the wife of a disabled man, if she qualified under the specific rules of the article. These amounts were however paid proportional to the level of disability.

For children, if no allowance under article 1A then 10s for a 1st child, 7s6d for a 2nd and then 6s. If there was an allowance under 1A then 7s 6d, 6d and 6d respectively. These amounts were however paid proportional to the level of disability.

The 7s 1d would be 85d.

So for 4 children, with no allowance, 29s 6d gross, at 20% this would be 71d, 5s 11d
So for 4 children, with allowance, 25s 6d gross, at 20% this would be 61d, 5s 1d

We have a shortfall of either 14d, 1s 2d, or 24d, 2s.

If we assume his wife did qualify, then it would be 10s at 20% which gives us 24d, 2s. Add this to the child allowance of 61d, 5s 1d, and we get the 85d, 7s 1d.

I would suggest that the w + 4 means wife's allowance and 4 children to take into account.

This also leads neatly to the 40% rate being double the 20% rate.

Craig

 

Thanks, Craig. 

Bottom line the seven shillings and a penny was paid in respect his wife and four children, rather than seven shillings and a penny being paid of each child.

Nigel  

[Matlock1418]

2 hours ago, hen190782 said:

Bottom line the seven shillings and a penny was paid in respect his wife and four children, rather than seven shillings and a penny being paid of each child.

Yes, the 7/1 figure will be the total paid - likewise for the 14/2 pw = Wife + 4 children

Got my head round the figures now thanks to Craig

He gets a 10/0 Allowance for his wife, and others for his children according to the corresponding scale [i.e. for when getting an allowance for his wife], thus ...

Wife  10/0

1st      7/6

2nd     6/0

3rd      6/0

4th      6/0

Total   35/6         x 20% =  7/1 pw    [at 20% disability]

                  and   x 40% = 14/2 pw   [at 40% disability]

M

Edited 1 February , 2023 by Matlock1418