National Superannuation

Press, 2 September 1983, Page 12

National Superannuation

Sir,—Correspondents who ' air their views appear to have overlooked that to sort the haves from the have-nots, would entail an annual means test. In my senility, I recall assisting my grandparents and later my parents, in the agony of the not-understood questionnaire. I can speak only of the 2nd N.Z.E.F., but I am duty-bound to remind those bemoaning tax payments that, on our Mediterranean holiday of four years and a half from Cairo to Trieste, we left behind 6718 who forfeited, inter alia, their privilege of being postwar taxpayers. Similarly, of the estimated 104,988 who served overseas in the 2nd

hundreds per month are relieving the taxpayer of a burden. — Yours, etc., H. W. BOYCE. September 1, 1983. Sir,—Perhaps the National Superannuation debate is one which cannot be won. Take the man who aims to provide for his own retirement by paying all through his working life into some form of superannuation scheme. Some would argue that because he has thus provided a source of income for himself, he should not be the recipient of National Superannuation. Ideally, such a benefit should be granted only to the person who has genuinely been unable to make provision for his own retirement. As it is, there must be many who do not concern themselves with making such a provision, counting on the fact that National Superannuation will be available to them. That being the case, those who set aside funds for their retirement days, instead of solely relying on the State to support them, should not be penalised for their prudence. — Yours, etc., MALCOLM SPARROW. August 31, 1983. Sir, — While I sympathise with the views of your low-income correspondents, the fact remains that we appear to be permanently saddled with this expensive give-away. Two compelling factors are attributable to the retention of National Superannuation; an insatiable desire for a Government to remain in office, and greed. The day of reckoning cannot be too far away. With an ever-diminishing workforce and a non-peaking army of unemployed, the ordinary bloke — who, after all bears the major burden of today’s tax burden — cannot continue for much longer to be taxed to provide what is for many just lolly money. Sooner or later, this at present docile ordinary bloke is going to rebel in one way or another against the weight of the tax albatross about his neck. — Yours, etc., LES BOGREN. August 31, 1983. 1