OLD-AGE PENSIONS.
pro THZ EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOU.1 SIR,—I do not know whether you will give me a hearing for a few words on your article of November 30th on "Old-Age Pensions" in your valuable and interesting paper. As far as I gather from the article, the Spectator is opposed not only to universal non-contributory old-age pensions, but also to any scheme of State assistance for the encouragement of thrift in any form. The reason given for this (may I say rather harsh?) conclusion is based on the fear of pauperising the people. But surely, Sir, a scheme could be worked out, say in con- nexion with the Friendly Societies, by which the State could meet a man's own efforts to help himself in his old age. I am quite as hostile as the Spectator to a non-contributory scheme, but perhaps, Sir, I may have misread your article.—I am,
Sir, &c., H. NOWELL PFARINGTON. The Club, Wigan.
[We have never opposed a contributory scheme. We will go further, and say that we should support such a scheme provided the pecuniary liability of the State were kept within strict bounds. As we have stated on former occasions, we should have no objection to compulsory and universal insurance in the matter of old-age pensions. The scheme we are inclined to prefer would be one under which every man and woman at twenty-one or before should be obliged to pay down such a sum as would, if the person reached sixty-five, give him or her an old-age pension of 5s. a week. We see no objection to a tontine scheme,—one under which those who did not reach sixty-five would forfeit the original payment. Under a tontine scheme the initial payment at or before twenty-one need, we believe, be only a very moderate sum. The sums accumulated at compound interest, not only on
the payments of the survivors, but of those who did not survive to claim their pensions, would produce the required funds. The matter is one with which we shall deal in greater detail on some future occasion.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
