TOPICS OF THE DAY.
OLD-AGE PENSIONS.
IT is asserted that the recommendations of the Old-Age Pensions Committee are to be framed on an heroic scale. Speakly broadly, they recommend a, pension of not less than 5s. a week, and possibly in some cases of 7s. a week, to all the deserving poor, men and women, who have reached the age of sixty-five yeang. By " deserving " is apparently meant persons who have never come on the parish, who have never been in prison, and who have made some effort in the direction of thrift, —we presume either through a club or through a savings bank. By "poor," it seems, is signified people who have not got 103. a week from other sources. Against this scheme considered in the abstract we have little to say, we admit that by sixty-five many men and women are getting unable to do the hard work of the world, and we agree that if it were possible it would be wise to give a premium to the deserving poor, and to select for special help those who bad helped themselves. Again, in the abstract there is a great deal to be said for restricting State help to those who really need it. When, however, we get to close quarters with so momentous a proposal as that of old- age pensions paid by the State, we must judge not by abstract considerations, but by the practical aspect of the proposal. And judged thus, it seems to us that the Committee's scheme cannot possibly be approved. Unless we are greatly mistaken, the scheme is far too onerous—i.e., far too big—to be safely accepted by the Government, and we most sincerely trust that they will not pledge themselves to give it legislative form. If they ao, they may be landed in difficulties of the most serious kind. As our readers know well, we do not say this because we are in any sense thick-and-thin opponents of all schemes for old-age pensions. On the contrary, we have always given a sympathetic attention to the matter, and have consistently advocated our own scheme of old-age pensions beginning at seventy-fiv,. Again, we need hardly say that our expressions of alarm at, and distrust of, the pro- posals of Mr. Chaplin'e Committee are not due to any feel- ing of wounded amour propre. We do not for a moment suggest that our scheme, and no other, should be adopted. The very most we desire to say for it is that if the Govern- ment are determined to do something, it would be a safe scheme,--one which would not land the nation in any vast expenditure, which would automatically stimulate the efforts of the benefit societies by relieving them of a great burden, and, finally, one which, if it were in the future thought desirable, could easily be expanded and enlarged.
As we have already hinted, our primary objection to the new scheme is its great cost. We do not suppose that the scheme could possibly cost less than 410,000,000 a year, for we assume that the clause insisting that the applicants should show some evidence of previous thrift would be•liberally interpreted. If not the unpopularity of the measure would be extremely great. Again, we may be pretty sure that it would not be possible to en- force very strictly any rule against the pensioners having more than, say, 10s. a week from other sources. Sons and daughters would he sure to make regular presents to their parents, or pay rent or other expenses, or send supplies in kind, and so evade the 10s. rule. In a word, it would not be a very considerable number of persons of over sixty-five who would be cut out by the limitations as to evidence of thrift and the existence of bond-fide poverty without a pension. But if the cost is to be £10,000,000 a year, or anything approach- ing that sum, we say without hesitation that it would be ruin for the Government to adopt it. The raising of the money must infallibly destroy our present financial system, and, in our opinion, such destruction would be a national disaster of the first magnitude. Where could a sum of the kind we have named be got suddenly P It certainly ought not to be got from the Income-tax, because the Income-tax is really our great war reserve. To raise the Income-tax to a shilling in peace time would be to deprive ourselves of a great instrument of defence. Practically, then, a sudden call for eight or ten mil- lions must mean an increase of indirect taxation. But it would be impossible to suddenly increase our indirect taxation in this way without laying a most serious burden upon industry, and so crippling trade. The only other alternatives would be a Hearth-tax or a Poll-tax, but the yield of such taxes is small compared with the difficulty of collection. In truth, the public evils of suddenly raising another ten millions a year would be far greater than the evils sought to be remedied. At present we have what is, after all is said and done, the best fiscal system in the world. Owing to its elasticity we can do a good deal in the way of gradually obtaining increased revenue from the taxpayer without injuring the system, but the imposition must be slow and careful. If you suddenly bump down a huge load on the camel's back you will break it.
We must end as we began, by suggesting that if the Government have come to the conclusion that' they are bound to do something in regard to the question of old-age pensions, what they ought to do is to begin by a limited and safe scheme, and then, if it is found convenient, to expand and increase it. We have no wish to press our own plan unduly, but we may use it as an illustration of what we mean when we advocate a limited scheme which shall be capable, if it works well, of an in- creased application. Let the Government propose to grant to all persons over seventy-five a pension of 5s. a week provided that they have not been in a workhouse except for medical relief—this proposal is to prevent the claiming of pensions by tramps and members of the true pauper class—and provided, also, that they are not Income-tax payers or occupiers of a house paying Inhabited House duty. Let them make the Post Office, working under the Guardians, the machinery for distributing the pensions, but let the cost be equally divided between the central - Government and the local authority. Under such a scheme the cost to the local authorities would not be likely to be more than the expenditure incurred now to sup- port persons over seventy-five, while the cost to the Im- perial Government would not probably be more than, say, a million and a half or two millions a year,—a sum which could be raised without producing a revolution in our fiscal system. If, after trial, it was found that the burden was not excessive, nothing would be easier than to gradually reduce the age at which pensions were due until sixty-five became the fixed age. As we have urged several times before, one of the great advan- tages of a scheme beginning at seventy-five is the help accorded to the benefit societies. They dare grant very good rates for 5s. a week old-age pensions beginning at sixty-five if they know that every pensioner will, for their purposes, die at seventy-five or before. We shall be told, of course, that the Spectator scheme has one fault which is fatal,—namely, that it would not ease the pressure where the shoe really pinches, and that relief at seventy-five is practically no relief at all. This we entirely deny. Of course, it is not such good relief as a pension at sixty-five, but it would, we believe, be received with great satisfaction, and could, as we have said, always be expanded. It is not a leap in the dark, but a step which, if it prove in the right direction, can be easily followed. If instead it prove a blunder, retreat is possible ; and even if there were no drawing back, comparatively little harm would be done. For these reasons we implore the Govern- ment to begin by a scheme which makes seventy-five the fixed age, and so limits the liability. If they insist upon the Committee's scheme, and rush suddenly into a vast and complicated plan, we foresee endless difficulties and perplexities,—difficulties and perplexities which must ulti- mately ruin not only the Government, but our present safe and vigorous system of finance.
Previous page
