SUPERANNUATION FUNDS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21961, 19 November 1934, Page 12

SUPERANNUATION FUNDS

Sir, —Mr. John Caughley declines my request thr.t, in the public interest, he inform the public how generously he has been treated by the general taxpayer in superannuation payments to date, on the ground that it is a personal matter. Is it a personal matter? Are the public not justly entitled to know how their contributions are being disbursed? The whole question, including the extra cost of the princely pensions, is one of vital moment to the struggling taxpayer. A return presented to Parliament last year showed that one gentleman had drawn to date £15,000 from the fund and had contributed only £1079. This highly-paid superannuitant with 26 others drawing £7OO per year and over, paid in £26.618 and drew out, to March, 1933, the huge sum of £126.039—m0re than half the State's contribution to the Superannuation Fund this year. Some of these highly-paid superannuitants accuse the Government of flagrant injustice; yet, though they receive more in pensions annually than their successors in office receive in salary, they are not content with their extraordinary pensions. Some of these gentlemen apply for, and because of their influence obtain, positions badly needed by others equally qualified, and this in spite of the fact that 60,000 of our fellow-citizens are unemployed and thousands of our youth (highly educated and on the threshold of life) are unable to obtain positions. We will probably be informed by Mr. Caughley that he and other highly-paid superannuitants were, under the Public Service or other Act, entitled to retiring allowances before the institution of the • superannuation scheme. But such retiring allowances would be a mere bagatelle in comparison with the huge amount now paid to them. "Pro Bono Publico's" fear of the future liability of the State is no "fitment of the imagination," as Mr. Caughley states. The rapidly-increasing number of civil servants, arising out of increased State services and "control," will be reflected in the greatly increased liability of the State for increased contributions to the Superannuation Fund in the future, and, because of this unknown increase, neither Mr. Caughley nor his, or other accountants or actuaries, can estimate the very large liability involved. Universal pensions, including the civil servants, or a revised system of Public Service superannuation ou the lines recommended by the Victorian (Australia) Superannuation Board of Inquiry, with increased contributions by the public servants, etc., seem to bo the only alternatives to the eventual breakdown of the State superannuation scheme; and, of the two, universal pensions is the most logical and fairest solution. Again I say, Mr. Caughley and his friends must be prevented from breaking the taxpaying camel's back by adding the last straw, and I agree with "Pro Bono Publico" that a "cut" in the large individual payments is overdue. Struggling Taxpayer.