Protected Life Insurance

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXV, Issue 161, 24 June 1935, Page 8

Protected Life Insurance

Sir, —Your sub-leader of 21st instant on this subject is intriguing—the sentiments therein expressed and implied do not appear to be in your usual impartial manner —they savour of a socialistic bias. Can you, for instance, inform me why you consider life insurance should be “protected” at all, any more than say deposits in the P.O. Savings Bank? In both cases the proceeds usually represent savings plus accumulated interest, though called bonuses in life insurance. Should not a man’s debts at his death be paid to the extent of all his available resources? Following out your implication, is there any reason why a Government should not legislate “protecting” Savings Bank deposits up to £2600 (or more as you imply) in the same way Again, why should the life insurance companies request “protection” for the funds of their members any more than the officials of the P.O. Savings Bank or, indeed, of any other financial institution for the funds of their depositors? Also, 1 do not see that policy-holders are “surely entitled to look” to the insurance companies to obtain such “protection”—the latter do not profess to provide any such “protection.” 1 consider you are quite wrong in stating that their failure to obtain “protection” means they arc concerned only with extending their operations. Your last five lines conti adict this. My attitude briefly is that a man should pay his debts, whether during his life or at his death, to the extent of all his available resources, including any savings he has made by way of life insurance 1 regard the “protection” as wrong in principle, though 1 admit it could not be now revoked, and I am quite against the amount being increased. Can you say if the original legislation was passed about the time the Government Life Insurance Department was created? You state it was over 50 years ago.—Yours, etc., POLICY-HOLDER. June 24, 1935.