SUPERANNUATION FUNDS.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20492, 10 March 1932, Page 7

SUPERANNUATION FUNDS.

10 THE *DITOB OF THE PKESS. Sir, —If your correspondents "Justice" and "Civil Servant" had read my previous letter with ordinary intelligence they would not blame me for "want of knowledge, ignorance, or prejudice." As a matter of fact, my letter was based mainly on the strength of the report of your Parliamentary reporter, wnich appeared in The Peess on the 2nd instant. "Justice ' and "Civil Servant" have evidently waxed wrath on account of my having commented on the subject. All tne figures I quoted were those of your reporter, and I would much prefei- to accept, or rely upon, his rather than those put forward by "Justice" and "Civil Servant." No doubt (as tice'' says), "these fat-salaried officials," (and I expect lean ones too), "did provide for their old age by contributing to the fund." If they had not done so, thoy would not have received any benefit from it. The question is, why should the Government subsidise this fund to the extent of £400,000 a year out of t>ie great majority of tax-payers' pockets, when they (the tax-payers) will not participate in the benefits? And why shoufd not the fund be worked, or carried out, on the principle of a life endowment insurance policy, without the pockets of the tax-payers being dipped into to swell it? In regard to superannuation being only spent in the Dominion, I. do not •suggest that it is spent out of it in every case, but it is done in a good many instances. As a case in point, a Government servant was superannuated on about £4OO a year (I am given to understand), some ten years ago, and he has returned to the Dominion, within the last fortnight or so, after spending nine years abroad. ' T do not wish to encroach on your space by writing again on this subject, but T do hope that when the Government does apply this cut to this fund, it will drive in very deeply. It is patent to everybody that this superannuation fund is manifestly unfair and unjust lo the tax-payers.—Yours, etc.. CITY TAX-PA YKR. March 9th. 1932.

10 T TIE EDITOR Of THE I'RESS Sir, — [ can sc; no valid reason whj' the pensions of retired Civil Servants should he exempt from a cut or taxation. There must be a very large number oi such fortunate people in the Dominion. It is only fair to recognise that during their years of service compulsory contributions to the Fund are oxacted, but it is only the large annual subsidy from the Consolidated Fund tliat enables thti payment of pensions on the past and present scales. One of your correpondents puts this subsidy as £400,G00 a year, while another declares that it is only 13 per cent., and tho individual payments 87 per cent. If this correspondent would supply an illustrative example of the actual contributions made by (say) Mr A. during his years of service, with a culminating salary of £SOO, and the amount of his pension, sonrip light might be thrown on the question. Certain of the public who are engaged in business feel that they have a real grievance in the fact (as I a m informed), that some of the receivers of the larger pensions on their retirement commence- business in competition with those who arc taxed to provide their pensions. This they justify by the fact that there arc no rules or regulations forbidding tho practice. It is perhaps appropriate to mention that while 20 pcr» cent. may seem to those interested a large amount., the actual incomes of many professional and business men are 50 per cent, less than they were two or three years a a o. —Yours, etc., OVERTAXED. March 9tli, 1932.