NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25810, 23 May 1949, Page 2

NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

Sir, —A little more to “‘Why Provide? '* On writing to the head office of the National Provident Fund I was referred back to its superintendent, Christchurch, who informed me that I had no claim, but if I accepted the old age pension at 25s a week it would not take the 3s a month tax off. As I am not eligible for social security what would happen if I accented his terms and worked un£il I am 64, earning £5OO a year (paying tax on that amount), and then found at 64 I had insufficient money to live on. I would be told r had agreed to accept 25s a week because I had not paid tax on £lOO approximately. Is this fair after having paid social security on £2000? What person would accept 25s a week under such conditions?—Yours, etc WHY SAVE? May 20, 1949.

Sir, —Your consideration in publishing the letters on the National Provident Fund has earned the gratitude of many readers. As your correspondents have pointed cut, the fund represents the life thrift of many members and was urged as a national duty by the Government of the day, which promised a return of 10s, 20s, or 4Qs week--4y for life after the age of 60, No one can say it is fair play for a government—after voting Itself huge pensions—to cut these trusting pensioners by amounts up to £7 16s per annum. It is doubtful if this action could be sustained by law and we National Provident Fund pensioners should test this matter. Union is strength, and a move should be made toward combined action against this unjust breach of contract.—Yours, etc., 7| PER CENT. PENSION CUT. May 19, 1949.