Superannuation & Taxation

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 230, 26 June 1935, Page 11

Superannuation & Taxation

Sir, —I read with interest a letter dated May 22 signed "Taxpayer” in “The Dominion” regarding Public Service superannuation, which pointed out that there were fifteen Civil Service annuitants each drawing over £7OO per annum, and to February 28, 1933, these fifteen had drawn £82,500 and paid in £17,435, and from the railway fund twelve drawing over £7OO per annum, having to February 2b, 1933, drawn £70,151 and paid in only £9183. These figures are staggering, and in the last two years must have become worse. It looks more like a State benevolent fund than Government superannuation. , . While having no complaint with regard to a fund which provides reasonable superannuation to the great body of civil servants, as one of the garden variety °t taxpayers I do honestly think that for a small community like New Zealand these very high superannuation payments are simply ridiculous, and after the stringent report of the commission on the serious position of the funds, how tile Government can ignore the position seem inexplicable. It looks as if the taxpayers will have to rise in a body to protest before anything is done. The present payments are more than absorbing the income being paid by the present civil servants for their superannuation, so in fairness to these members something should be done immediately to protect their interests. The habit that has crept into the Public Service of pushing some of the higherpaid officials into special positions with, greatly increased salaries for the last few years of service so they can be retiree! at a superannuation about equivalent to their previous salary is to be roundly condemned ns an*imposition on the New Zealand taxpayer. Superannuation was never originally intended to institute luxurious leisure for a favoured few. Up to £3OO per annum., it might be all right, but for twice and three times this amount to be paid to one individual, independent of his individual needs and income, and at the expense of the public in most cases, well, is it fair or just, especially at a time like this, when so many are in distress? Let the public speak with a loud voice and tell the Government that it is imperative, in the name of justice, that this position be rearranged by a fairer distribution, and that some consideration be shown for present subscribers.—l am, etc.. EQUITY. AVellington, June 25.