UNKNOWN

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20490, 8 March 1932, Page 11

UNKNOWN

unjust attack ! "who Lave previously 1 was their duty ( Dot e *" ' Sk;P9iiit out l t°o f "City J MjjP!?** *h may think (

the same that these "fat" salaried officials did provide for their old age by contributing to the fund from which they now receive their superannuation amounts ranging from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent, of those fat salaries. These latter amounts in many -cases did not exceed about £2OO per annum, and after 40 years' service superannuation would amount to two-thirds of that Ba When superannuation was introduced public servants were entitled to certain monetary benefits if their services were ■ dispensed with through no fault of their own, and these benefits were surrendered on condition that the years of service prior to 1908 were allowed the contributor to the superannuation fund. Instead of placing that capital amount immediately to the fund the Government is paying it in instalments. "City Taxpayer" quotes the very few examples of high superannuation, but omits to mention the very numerous cases where the amount is only round about £IOO per annum. He also is evidently not aware that in quite a number of cases public servants, having been retained in the service" after their 40 years -of service, had to continue their contributions until they were retired, for which they received no higher superannuation than they would have received if they had retired at 40 years' service. Let me also inform "City Taxpayer" that in the early days of the Public Service it took about nine years to receive £l5O per annum. Are these the fat salaries referred to by him? Further, I have known instances of public servants working for years from 10 to hours a day under heavy nervous strain, for which they did not receive a penny overtime, and often without regular annual leave, eventually having to meet considerable medical and other expenses as the result of those long hours. "City Taxpayor's" opinion that superannuation should only be spent in the Dominion is rather absurd when it is remembered that the amounts received in the greater percentage o cases will not allow of its being spent elsewhere. In any case it is the contributor's own money, and if the suggestion was enforced in the case o j superannuation it would require to e enforced in cases where sufficient j

capital was saved to provide that person with a competency in old age where that capital was the outcome of business or other saving in the Dominion. Where superannuation is high enough to come under the requirement of paying income tax that tax is charged under the unearned scale, so that some superannuated public servants continue to assist the Government in paying the subsidy to the fund. I would point out to "City Taxpayer" that for the year ending March 31st, 1931, the contributions by members to the Public Service Superannuation Fund amounted to £271,179, interest on. in-, vestments £162,888, while retiring allowances to members, widows, and children amounted, to £381,242. The amount invested at that date was £2,925,419. Another point which might be of interest to your readers is that where a contributor retires before he is entitled to superannuation he receives hip contributions back without interest. ~ P ei "haps after reading this ■ letter "City Taxpayer" and others will admit there are always two sides to be considered, and that it is -not alwavs wise to_ express definite opinions until those sides have been heard.—Yours, etc., JUSTICE. March sth, 1932.