PENSIONS AND THRIFT

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 19, 22 July 1925, Page 4

PENSIONS AND THRIFT

The time Has certainly come for a thorough overhaul of our pensions system; and if this work is to be done properly it must take account first of principles. A critic examining the system at present with its anomalies would be justified in concluding that principles had been deemed quite a minor consideration—that impulse rather than thought had guided the Legislature. That is certainly the deduction to be drawn from the facts as they stand. We have old age pensions which penalise thrift, widows' pensions in two classes, industrial pensions with an exceedingly narrow application. We do not suggest that there has been no justification, or at least excuse, for many of the anomalies. If old age pensions are considered, for example, it must be admitted that when the system was first introduced there were many worthy old people who had battled hard with the difficulties of life in a new country, and, through no fault of their own, had been unable to make provision for their old age. They had given all to the country and the country owed them something in return. But since that time there have been schemes introduced to help the thrifty. There is the National Provident Fund, which is State-aided, there are superannuation funds, and numerous private insurance schemes. These methods of making provision for old age and sickness are contributory, and, in a great measure, voluntary. They call for foresight, thrift, and self-denial. Is it right that the people who display these qualities should receive less consideration than those who take no thought for the morrow—that the man who in his 65th year receives an insurance endowment of £500 should find that because he has denied himself to obtain this he is deprived of a pension] Unhesitatingly we hold that it is not right. Yet we realise that, with insurance which is wholly voluntary, it is impossible to correct this unfairness. The Legislature cannot afford the money to endow the thrifty as they deserve; it even finds it necessary to tax the small savings of some; and it will not agree to penalise the thriftless because it is often impossible to distinguish them from the unfortunate. Yet it is imperative that something should be done to right the injustice, which is gradually becoming more marked. The thrifty of all classes are paying more and more each year, not merely for the unfortunate but for those who choose to be improvident. It must not be thought that this is a plea for the rich or that they only are affected. One of the biggest mutual provident organisations in New Zealand is also one of the biggest taxpayers. If our pension and provident schemes are to be made more generous and- all-inclusive, covering sickness, unemployment, and every other cause, we must see that there is a sound foundation of principle. The schemes must be made contributory and all persons must contribute.