THE SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22372, 8 April 1938, Page 17

THE SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

TO THE EDITOR OP THE PRESS. Sir, —“Kaye Hoe’s” comment on the superannuation scheme expresses the right idea. Howevei, I should like to amend the paragraph where he says; “The limit of income or wages need only be governed by the supply of goods.” Omit the words “or wages” and it reads better. As wages costs go into prices, it would be possible to receive high wages and buy few goods with them, as prices would jump with the rise in wage costs. If wages remained normal and family incomes were increased by a dividend to each man, woman, and child (a national dividend provided by a State issue of debt-free money), incomes would then become sufficient purchasing power to buy the goods produced, providing the compensated or just price mechanism is introduced to prevent price inflation. My excuse for emphasising the difference between the words, wages (or salaries), incomes, apd purchasing power, is that so many Labour enthusiasts confuse the terms, and boast about increased purchasing power when a new award gives an increase in wage rates. Higher wages for 50 men, if another 25 are sacked, mean a smaller total of incomes and less purchasing power. Higher wages for the whole 75 mean a larger total of incomes, but a greater cost to production —a higher price level of goods, and therefore no real increase in purchasing power. The time has come to demand not higher wages, but that everyone must have adequate incomes. Not only the wage earner, but his wife, his boy and girl, the baby in the cradle, the grandparents, so Vricit tAva ©wvchastng demand can absorb the goods produced, through an issue of debt-free money which is not included in the costs of production. At present price levels a total income of £lO for the average-sized family and £6 a week for a superannuated couple should be easily possible. Labour’s superannuation plan is simply the sustenance dole at 60. — Yours, etc., LOVELL-SMITH. April 6. 1938.

TO TUB EDITOR OP THE PRESS. Six-,—As I read “Democrat’s" contribution 1 recalled that Captain Rushworth asked the Prime Minister a question about the holders of New Zealand’s national debt. The Prime Minister's reply can be found irv Hansard. As £80.000,000 of that debt is a war charge, and £96,000,000 in interest nai been paid to the bondholder's to date how does “Democrat" propose to deal it out to these possibly tax-free holders of the debt,? As I draw a veteran’s allowance, will he deprive me of my vote and allow tax-gath-erers to vole? Professor Soddy writes “of those who live on ‘savings,’ or as I prefer to call it. national indebtedness.” One wonders what sort of franchise medicine “Democrat” proposes to measure out to the banking and insurance institutions, and the careful housewife who puts a few shillings weekly in the Government Savings Bank. Again, will he deprive the pensioner, civil or military, who, through the years has contributed directly and indirectly to the handsome incomes of those who live on national indebtedness, and allow them the franchise to hoot? Verily, according to “Democrat.” "unto him that hath shall be given, but to him that hath not shall be taken away, even that which he hath." God's will — blessed be Mammon. —Yours, etc., T. POWELL,. Albury, April 7. 1938.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —The criticism levelled at the Government’s superannuation and health proposals has caused me to ask myself why they are necessary, and I wish lo show how the necessity could have been avoided. Most criticism must come from those who will not benefit. They will not benefit because at some time they or their forbears were either in business, owned more land than they could cultivate by their own hands, or held shares in some business. In any of the three cases they would, directly or indirectly, be employers. Through paying a minimum wage or charging a high rent for property, they prospered and were known as thrifty, while their employees had to spend their earnings at once, and the man on their land had to endeavour lo make sufficient to keep himself and help to fkeep his landlord. They could have avoided the present position by paying higher wages and taking a smaller dividend on their shares, thus leaving more for the man who was producing their dividends. This man had to live , hand to mouth, and because he could not save, he is now called a “dullard” or said to be lazy and thriftless. Had he been allowed to be thrifty he would have eventually entered into competition with his employers and have educated his children properly, and they would have, without a doubt, beaten the thrifty man’s sons or daughters for the better paid jobs. That was obvious, so the producer of their wealth had to be kept in his place. Perhaps some of the critics belong to the political party which believes in State subsidy of unprofitable concerns, by which all taxpayers have to contribute part of their taxes to the subsidised firm so it can pay a dividend to a few shareholders. Under State control all taxpayers will be shareholders, and will benefit by reduced taxation. In 1936-37 there were 5050 icople with a total income of £11,000,000 or, say, £21,700 each. Surely they do not want the man with an income of £SOO or £6OO to help give them superannuation when they will not miss their contribution. I have recently had the pleasure of looking over that wonderful Oxford Group Annual, “Rising Tide,” and instead of now being very antagonistic to the so-called capitalist class, I will try to be tolerant and I hope they will also get the spirit of the Oxford Group and co-operate with their fellow men. I am already contributing to a superannuation fund, but I will gladly give another shilling in the £ to give security to the old. All others who are sharing in the (approximately) £145,000,000 private income of New Zealand should willingly do likewise.— Yours, etc., SEEKER OF TRUTH. Timaru, April 6. 1938.

TO THE EDITOB OF THE PBESO Sir, —At last we have the details of the great superannuation scheme before us, and what a disappointment all the thrifty people of this country will have when they read it! Mr Savage said superannuation for all, but he changes like the wind and the thriftless are to be the favoured ones, those who never looked ahead and thought of their old age; and now the people will be taxed to keep them, whether they like it or not. The old age pensioners will be much better off than thousands that are taxed, and anyone that has more than £1 a week from savings is to be debarred from sharing in the scheme that was to be for all. Mr Savage said the people were overtaxed when he took office, but he is putting on taxation every way he can think Of, The people will have to rise up against it when they are apked to pay into a scheme from which they

will never get any benefit. Mr Savage is nothing but bluff and broken promises.—Yours, etc., DISAPPOINTED. April 7. 1938.

TO TBS EDITOR OF THR PRESS. Sir, —Listening to Mr Savage’s superannuation scheme over the wireless, I wondered how many others were waiting and yearning for one word of help, one little thought for our burned-out returned men. Widows, orphans, deserted wives, etc.,_ but no mention of those poor, suffering men who are now suffering from their experience during the yeai’s 1914-18; but because they cannot satisfy doctors that shattered nerves and complete wrecks are the effects of war, they go on until, in numerous cases, they find the better way out. Why not give every soldier according to his years of service, age, and position a little help along? Many men have received pensions from the very outset of the war, and, if facts were seen into, can do a day’s work with the next one, while others again have broken up at the age of 40, to face a dismal future alone and unaided. Yet these are the same boys, some in their teens, whom bands played off to trains and steamers at the commencement of the war —our heroes.

It would be interesting to learn how many of our worthy Labour members really saw actual fighting. We find a united family spirit with returned men because they as a body know what all have been called upon to face. If these inventors of Mr Savage’s superannuation scheme went through Messines. the Somme, Passchendaele Ridge, Armentieres, etc., would they leave these men, the bravest of the brave, to exist suffering and unaided until they are 60? Some we see on soldiers’ settlements,' their gratuity money, and, in many cases, their parents’ life-long savings gone into their allotments, and now we find them working on a budget, married men receiving £2 5s a week, which includes the keep of a man to help keep the Government sections clean. He has seen droughts, floods, slumps, grub-infested areas, etc., and last, taut not least, the same soldier sees the Government for whom he has fought and saved from German rule tax him for what goes off his farm, even although he himself, a married man, is doomed to £2 5s a week and has to pay interest on the money he is mixed on. Could I only raise a hue and cry over this inhuman injustice whereby something could be done, I would feel my life had not been lived in vain. Must it be they will have to move off then- holdings, broken in spirit and in mind, while the Labour Government awaits its next victim? —Yours, etc.. ONLY A MACHINE-GUNNER’S WIFE. April T, 1938. TO THE EDITOR OF TUB PRESS. Sir, —In your issue of April I I read a very informative letter by “Rip Van Winkle,” and particularly noted that his estimate of cost of the expected Government schemes was £Iz,zoU,UUU. What a big sum! Can it be done.' I also listened in with great interest to the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage’s radio address on baiuiday night. In a few minutes my mouth watered —a veritable choice champagne of well-doing. What a kind heart Mr Savage has! What a good missionary lost! No little heathens- would gel moral cotton handkevchnofs noin him—no, silk, every time. Showers of golden plums rained upon me, and hnally exhilarated and exhausted I sal back in. my easy chair. It was a perfect maelstrom of delight Mr Savage, in 15 minutes, closed every chink, to woe and misery. , _ Ti . Hitherto I have looked at Utopia at long range—like Mark Twain at Zermatt. (You will remember that hj;, sat in an easy chair—in middle ol street —Etnd with a telescope watched the -progress of two complete strangcis in their ascent of Mi. Blanc; on then arrival at summit lie cheered.) But, your Mr Rip Van Winkle, whose ante-type spent 40 years taxfree on a mountain, brings me back to earth. Too many of us are over 60— the provision of £12,250,000 is a stiff proposition to me.- I also recollect all the other ventures we have in hand, such as railway stations (and crossings), post offices, town halls, Public Trust buildings, roads, ad infinitum. What is coming—probably a lively disturbance in friendly societies and insurance circles. I have seen many slumps, so laugh while we mayMy views conform with those ol youi Mr “Van Winkle"—l omit the Rip —it reminds me of the original s bad habit, which, as I remarked, made him sneak out of 40 years’ taxation. I have come across depraved men who would actually like to sleep three months (not 40 years) in mid-winter—salaries to go on all the same. “And now to bed” (Pepys)—Yours, etc., SENEX April 7. 1938.