Superannuation

Press, 30 August 1986, Page 20

Superannuation

Sir,—As your recent editorial showed, estimating the merits of superannuation schemes is complex. R. L. Laurenson (August 27) also pointed out that the bases of the figures tossed around are usually unclear. They are also incomplete. For example, in your article of August 23 you quote an attempt by G. Angus and R. Manning to estimate costs to 2036. Now one factor reducing the cost to New Zealand of the present scheme is the money she gets from the United Kingdom for thousands of superannuitants now living here. Their pensions are “topped up” from the New Zealand scheme, but seem always to be treated in

the calculations as though wholly financed from New Zealand. Professor Manning tells me that he has no idea what this input amounts to. Obviously it must be a tidy sum, but no one seems to know (or want to know) what it is. With deficiencies like this in the basic data, one wonders whether such long-range, crystal ball gazing has any validity at all. — Yours, etc., JOHN WARHAM. August 28, 1986. Sir, —All that the National Party’s proposed policy on superannuation does, in essence, is to substitute another means test for that in operation — the tax surcharge. Make people over the age of 65 exempt from the surcharge and there is no difference in principle between one and the other. However, if there has to be a means test, the surcharge is preferable. It is less cumbersome and costly to administer; nobody need humble his pride by applying for a benefit at 60 and having to prove his poverty; and it is fairer, for it does not discriminate against those now under 40 so that those now over 60 may receive a pension that is not means-tested. The National Party has no policies worth the name, but has suddenly discovered a talent for amusing conjuring tricks. I wonder if Mr Bolger has any more to show to the public; it makes a pleasant diversion from serious politics.—Yours, etc., F. ROBINSON. August 28, 1986.