The Wanganui Chronicle WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 1938. NOT A NATIONAL SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 81, 6 April 1938, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 1938. NOT A NATIONAL SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

WO objections stand out plain to the Government’s propose

superannuation scheme. The first of these objections is that the scheme is not a national one, and the second objection arises out of the first, namely, that it imposes a burden upon those who are denied the benefits thereunder.

It has previously been stated in this column ’that there is need for a national superannuation scheme. By a national scheme is meant that it comprises the whole of the community. Such a scheme is to be desired because there are too many individuals who are working for what is termed “a living wage.” Clearly a living wage is not a saving wage, but an income to enable the recipient to live according to the accepted standards of his class. Further, while the best firms and the captains of industry put aside a portion of their profits to ensure that a pensions fund exists from which to provide for retired employees, too many employers are not captains of industry and too many firms cannot be included in the category which goes by the title best. The present system leaves so much to be desired that it cannot be allowed to continue. The world will not long tolerate the throwing of aged employees on to the scrapheap, but will demand that a proper provision will have to be made for such employees.

In any national scheme those who are called upon to contribute should be benefited to the extent of the amount which they pay into the scheme, just as in the ease of a man taking out an endowment insurance policy; he receives back in benefits in proportion to the payments which he has made. Under the scheme outlined by Mr. Savage, many men will be mulcted of half of their savings but will receive nothing in return if they continue in their efforts to provide for their old age. For instance, a married man with an earned income of £lO a week would be fortunate indeed if he were able to save £.lOO a year during the period in which his family is dependent upon him. The Government’s proposal is that he shall pay ten shillings in direct contributions and another ten shilling in indirect contributions. In other words, fifty per cent, of the man’s savings are taken from him to bestow benefits in which he can have no part, if he ensures himself of an income on retirement of £126 a year.

The injustice of such a proposal is patent. It is taking from one and giving to another without any regard to the contribution which the one makes to the general wellbeing of society and the contribution of the other. It must be remembered that before a man can earn a salary of £5OO a year he has to spend many years qualifying himself to discharge the functions of the office which he comes eventually to hold. Further, he has to invest in himself by paying for special training, and he has to put forward a high degree of skill which involves him in a severe mental and nervous strain as compared with less specialised work. The proposals of the Government will act as a deterrent to men engaging in specialised work because their rightful rewards will be taken from them in considerable measure.

On the other hand, there is a definite incentive for people to engage in a thriftless way of living, enjoying all the fruits of their labour immediately because they cannot benefit themselves by engaging in saving.

The limit of allowable income of one pound a week is too low. The lowest limit of allowable income should be £5 a week, if any limit should be set at all. There is no real reason, however, for an allowable income limit, for everyone who works produces something, and every producer contributes to the wellbeing of the community. It is the man -who ceases working who is’a liability, and ceasing to work should not be encouraged, because a man is happier at work than he is doing nothing, and he is a burden to the community. The old Chinese proverb is still true: “When an idle man eats, an industrious man starves.”