Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CORRESPONDENCE

SOCIAL SECURITY

PAYMENTS AND BENEFITS

(To the 'Editor.)

Sir,—The Prime Minister's statement published in Monday's "Evening Post" that the rights of superannuitants and contributors under present schemes would be safeguarded, is most reassuring, but what I, and doubtless many others who are contributors to existing superannuation funds, also wish to know is tlie extent to which we shall be asked to contribute to the proposed social security scheme. Obviously we should not' be compelled to pay ls in the £ of our wages to the proposed fund when we,are already subscribing to a fund which will provide an adequate pension on retirement. If, as is proposed, the present unemployment tax is to be abolished (a reduction at least in that tax was long overdue), no wage-earner, who is a contributor to an existing superannuation scheme, should' object to payment of a small proportion of the levy of Is in the £ as a contribution to the suggested free health service. It would appear^ however, that only one fund covering pension and health service benefits is to be established. If that is the case and everyone will be called upon tp pay the full levy, the scheme in so far ascontributors to existing pension funds are concerned is, I consider, unfair, in that they will subscribe at the same rate as other, contributors with no possibility of obtaining the same .benefits.—I am, etc., CONTRIBUTOR.

"One of Them" asks: "Could you inform me if any provision is to be made for a married couple where the husband is 60 years or. over and his wife is under that age, or does this scheme mean that any coiiple placed in this unfortunate position, and there must be many of them in New Zealand, will have to . struggle to make ends meet on 30s per weetountil the wife attains' the age of 60 years?" •, A similar question is raised by "Dumbfounded," who also criticises, the effect of the scheme oh saving. None but the few will worry about saving and the majority will be encouraged to spend their savings before , reaching pension age.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19380406.2.61

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 81, 6 April 1938, Page 10

Word Count
348

CORRESPONDENCE Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 81, 6 April 1938, Page 10

CORRESPONDENCE Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 81, 6 April 1938, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert