Superannuation

Press, 2 September 1986, Page 20

Superannuation

Sir, —As technology advances, the retirement age is expected to fall dramatically, indicating a need to lower the age for eligibility for national superannuation. Already there are career people in their forties out of work and considered “too old” for retraining. Where is the logic in paying these people a lower rate (unemployment) while they have a mortgage and family obligations, and a higher rate (superannuation) to those who no longer have such commitments? A Government with foresight would do the opposite of National’s proposal, and plan to lower the age requirement and, if necessary, decrease the rate. — Yours, etc., P. C. SUMPTER. August 28, 1986.

Sir, —I see (August 29) where a Waikato University study states that people over 60 will increase about 95 per cent in the number per 1000 of population by the year 2036. I dispute that. The Planning Council, which advises the Government, puts the figure as 2 per cent, as does Sir Robert Muldoon in one of his books. However, the university group may be correct as all the young people under a Labour Government are migrating — a loss of 15,000 for the last six months. Perhaps by the year 2036 there may not be a single person left in the country under 60. Under Labour, if a person is thrifty and saves for old age with an income

over $6OOO a year he is classed as wealthy and is heavily taxed. That is the penalty for saving.— Yours, etc., K. LIDD. August 30, 1986.

Sir, —I agree with the very sensible letter by J. L. Milburn (August 28) about superannuation. I remember the five-shilling dole in the 19305. At one time retired people received a cut in their television licence and telephone fees. The National Government saw fit to abolish this benefit, which prompted me to write to Sir Robert Muldoon and tell him this action would • cost his party a lot of votes. At this election the majority amounted to two seats. National lost the next election. — Yours, etc.,

W. M. AITKEN. August 29, 1986.