L E RS TO TH E E D [TO R.
OLD-AGE PENSIONS.
lTo THIE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."]
Sut,—The article on "Old-Age Pensions" in your last issue contains a suggestion to the effect that the Government would do well to issue a Blue-book containing information as to the annual sum which a parent would have to pay in order to
secure to a child a pension of 5s. per week at sixty-five, supposing it reached that age. I believe that I am not alone among the advocates of universal old-age pensions in welcoming any suggestion which can encourage thrift and self-help, and can make the economical advantages of provision for old age obvious and intelligible. But no old-age pension so paid for by a parent would commence till the designated child attained sixty-five, and a scheme for such parental provision, taken alone, calls for a long period of patience on the part of those who are dissatisfied with present methods of dealing with the aged poor. I should like to add the following inquiries :— What are the proportions, approximately, in which the cost of supporting the two millions of people over sixty-five is now borne (a) by people whose incomes are under £160 a year, (b) by people whose incomes are over that amount, (c) by the rates? [N.B.—People who support themselves wholly or partially to be included in (a) and (b).] What annual sums would have to be paid per head by class (a), and in proportion to every £100 of income by class (b), in order to provide, with a minimum of displacement of present burdens, 5s. per week for all persons over sixty-five ?
I admit that these questions are directed to obtain data for a scheme of universal pensions, and I know that the Spectator apprehends that any such scheme will discourage thrift and self-help. I am not desirous at the moment to combat that apprehension. It is the other apprehension of the Spectator —viz., that universal old-age pensions are impossible without Protection—which I feel to be HO pressing as to demand some such inquiry before any universal scheme can be practically advocated by Liberals. Further detailed inquiries would be required for the details of a scheme. The question whether purely voluntary insurance or a State scheme of exacting a tribute and returning a benefit will better encourage thrift and self-reliance remains a fair subject for discussion. Both parties to the discussion will be the better for more informa- tion on the financial aspects of the questiou.—I am, Sir, &c., [As the context shows, our suggested inquiries were with reference to a system of compulsory insurance for the whole population. We suggest that every person before reaching the age of twenty-four shall be obliged to pay such a sum as will buy him or her an old-age pension. We would, however, allow parents, if so inclined, to make a payment at birth, which would, of course, be very much less. Theoretically, no doubt, compulsory old-age insurance and State-provided old-age pensions are one and the same, but there is in practice this important difference. In the case of compulsory in- surance an equitable system of direct taxation is provided automatically with the scheme, and so the cause of Free-trade is saved. In the other case Free-trade is certain to go by the board.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
