THE SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22370, 6 April 1938, Page 6

THE SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

TO TUB EDITOR OP THE PRESS. Sir,—On Saturday, the writer very carefully listened to Mr Savage announce the Government’s superannuation and health scheme. As a worker, my summing up of this address was that it was nothing more than an insult to the intelligence of New Zealanders. Being unbiased on political affairs, it would puzzle my imagination should 75 per cent, of the workers accept the political bluff. Imagine a healthy New Zealander at 60 years of age being offered 30s to retire. One can hear the majority of workers saying: what does the Government take me for? (New Zealand stamina and pluck at a discount.) We were told the Government would allow us to have an income of £1 a week, but evidently the Government may be shy or ashamed to announce .that any amount above the paltry pound would

be deducted from the superannuation of 30s.

Again, a man earning £8 a week will have to pay £2O a year over and above income tax to obtain 30s when 60 years old. Suppose he paid the £2O a year tax for an endowment life policy. Think what he provides for his dependants should be die the next day. Think of the lump sum he could enjoy at the age of 50 or 55. To-day we have free medical attention for all, free hospitals for all who cannot afford to pay. Pensions for women at 60, and for men at 65, and all these are provided without the taxation of Is in the pound on wages and income. Also lodges and benefit societies provide benefits at much lower premiums. Why change? Now, take for instance gangs of workmen —working on. piecework and by hard work some gangs can earn £6 or £7 a week,, against other gangs working slower who earn only £4 or £5 a week. Why should the former hard workers be forced to pay higher taxation than the latter slow workers to obtain exactly the same benefits? Quite unfair. Let us give these matters serious thought before swallowing the political pill.—Yours, etc., ENJOY WORK. April 4, 1938. TO THE EDITOR OE THE PRESS. Sir, —Regarding Mr Savage’s superb annuation scheme, I should like to know what provision he has made for the married man’s wife and child depending on him. In this case the man is over 60, and his wife is younger, with one child. Does Mr Savage consider it fair to ask a man to accept £ 1 10s a week to try to keep his home going? He says they can earn up to £ 1 a week. .That is, if the recipient is lucky enough to get the work, but one will find the bosses will sidestep the old man at 60. I know what I am writing about. The man who is going to benefit by the scheme is the single man; he is offered the same as the married man with a wife and child or children. Mr Savage should be fair to all or leave the scheme alone. —Yours, etc., LABOUR. Lyttelton, April 5, 1938, *0 TEX XDITOX or TEX PXEIB. Sir,—l see by the report in your paper that the age limit for the new superannuation scheme about to be introduced is 60 years of age. Will this, I wonder, apply to returned soldiers also—men who have in the hell of 1914 to 1918 prematurely aged by anything from five to 10 years? If such is the case, I am afraid very few of them will ever receive the superannuation, for the majority of them will never see 60 years of age. They are burnt out now at 45 to 50 years of age. Surely the Government can grant more consideration to returned soldiers. Not a hundredth part are on pension, and some on very small pension. The Returned Soldiers’ Association is the proper authority to take this matter up, and it would be interesting to hear its opinion on this flagrant injustice to men who deserve more consideration. —Yours, etc., AGE LIMIT 50. April 5, 1938.