Need for self-achievement and development seen

Press, 17 July 1979, Page 27

Need for self-achievement and development seen

by DOUG GRAHAM In 1898 the Old Age ; Pensions Act was passed. It provided for a pension of eighteen pounds per annum payable at age 65 subject to a stringent ■means test. It was said that this marked the recognition of the principle of State responsibility for the relief of individual poverty. That was sound. . Fri 1976 Superannuation was radically altered. It provided for a pension of eighty per cent of the average wage payable at jsixty without a means 'test. It was said that this marked the recognition of the principle of State responsibility for years of industry and productivity. That was not sound. Gone is the basic premise that it is the public’s duty — to help those in need. Why the change tn principle? First, at the behest of the populace, which has grown almost entirely dependent upon the State, and a resultant “what’s in it for me” approach. Second the irresistible yet irresponsible use by successive Government of welfare as a means of gaining or retaining power.

As a result of the change in principle our economy is under an increasing strain, and the dignity the Welfare State is meant to protect is actually being destroyed. Social Welfare has created many of our social problems.

? The ever-expanding state machine, in administering the Welfare State, j has tended to squeeze the ' life out of every individ- • ual.

• Every earning member ; of the public must con- • tribute some of his reve- , nue to central Government ■’ for essential services. > However, the less he • has to pay the better.

• We have reached the stage where the amount ■ he is now expected to pay ; has removed his natural •j desire to work and , achieve. This creates a lethargy which is unhealthy in the ' extreme when considered . on an international competitive basis. Lethargy ; also results in social prob- ■ lems which are compounded in an atmosphere of dependence on the cen•tral Government.

The original objects, aims, and principle of aged benefits of any kind, 1 were to ensure the elderly , could afford to live in ■ dignity. That is not saying there should be no Super-

annuation. Any people who require assistance should be assisted. But those who do not need to receive assistance should not do so “as of right.” It is quite absurb to pay a high incidence of taxation whether direct or indirect, to service a payment which is not needed. We cannot afford it now and will be able to afford it less in the future. The cost, both financially and in human terms, is prohibitive; the burden is now too great financially for this state of affairs to continue. The finance required has resulted in crippling tax rates. In turn, crippling tax means that fewer and fewer people are prepared to try. Worse still, the effect on the moral fibre of the nation is extremely detrimental. It has resulted in the “everyone owes me a living” approach. The principle that the State owes you a living is wrong — unless you have no means of your own. It is not the function of the State to take a large share of the people’s revenue into a common pool and distribute it across the board. Its function is only to support those who cannot support themselves.

At the moment Superannuation is costing more

than $1100M; 1976 figures (from the New Zealand Planning Council’s most recent Welfare State report), showed that more than 400,000 (or 13 per cent of our population) were older than 60; and by the year 1991, based on a natural increase to an estimated population of 3,465,000. this figure will rise to 490,000, or 14 per cent.

But by the year 2011, the average age is expected to rise from 26 to 35 years of age. Taking into account wage increases of the same proportion as in recent years and inflation, at 80 per cent of the average wage as at present, it is clear we cannot continue to support such a system. Add other normal population growth, increasing numbers of aged actually living longer, a minimal increase in our work force because of reduced numbers of young people coming through, and we are forced to ask ourselves — how can we support the Welfare State?

I think we must go back to a means test and the commencing age revert to 65.

Education must remain; similarly as far as possible, free health. Other than that, over the next

five years to 10 years there should be a planned programme of reducing all other forms of benefits. The result of carrying on the way we are means the burden will be far too great. Certainly, such a move would be the beginning of the end of those parts of the Welfare State which are wrong in principle and are therefore not in the best interests of either the State or the people themselves, who make it. It would take people a while to adjust, as so many have taken on commitments on the strength of receiving the payment. One of the immediate results of setting the age back would be increased productivity from a still very active and important age group. It seems to me it would be better to try and reduce Government expenditure, thus, Government’s take, create more self reliance and give greater reward to those earning, as well as reducing dependence on the Government. The Welfare State will always exist to some extent but to move from a “basic need” approach to a “return for services rendered,” is illogical. Such a move would also work if there is a much greater encouragement to become self-reliant and if we can achieve a greater stability within society —- which seems lacking at present. Self-achievement is very necessary for self-devel-opment: For each person to feel they are a necessary part in the overall scheme of things rather than just another cog in the wheel, is vital. Yet to know that Superannuation is waiting for us when we reach 60, irrespective of our income or means, is simply removing the personal incentive and responsibility to try, the dignity to achieve and the necessity to care, while we are young — both as individ-