By Elvin Bailey
.jpg)
If you read last week’s commentary, you will realize that the boundaries of which I wrote are actually tolerance levels rather than the other type of physical restrictions. I informed about pensions (age, formula, payment method), about contributions (rate, exemptions, ceiling), about sickness (real, imagined) and about survivors (kin and caretaker). This final article presents the tolerance limits on the remaining aspects of Social Security.
Making loans to Government for the development of the country was either a good thing or a bad thing for most persons, depending on the colour (not skin) of the person. Very few were dispassionate or colour neutral. Some were comforted by the revelation that both the Federal and Local governments were repaying the loans and were up to date with their payments. Others maintained that government should stop ‘dipping its hand in the people money’ and seek development money elsewhere. Some others thought that the interest rate charged should be more aligned with commercial loans and less “soft” than they are now. I believe though that all persons were thankful for the development that Social Security, through its loans portfolio, has brought to the homeland and merely wanted more public scrutiny of the loans requested before they are decided upon.
The fact that a large portion of our reserves resides within the Federation was also contentious. Let me clarify that: the fact that your money is placed in institutions that do a lot of business overseas and were getting better returns than we were getting. Further, your money was loaned to institutions from whom you borrowed and paid interest rates that included agency fees. So what did the participants want Social Security to do? Eliminate the middle man and do the lending ourselves but charge borrowers less interest. Moreover, invest the money overseas ourselves, up to 25% of all the assets. Diversify the portfolio to a mix more in line with practices of other financial institutions (and they named the institutions), and reduce the amount of monies in the local bank(s)!
A consensus position emerged that the maternity grant of $450.00 is not enough to encourage childbearing, so increase it. But only give it - in kind - to women who give birth in the Federation. Children born overseas, even to nationals, are foreigners and can leave whenever they wish. Home shouldn’t pay for these Away babies! I couldn’t comment on that one, except to state that Social Security is an equal opportunity institution, nationals and non-nationals pay at the same rate and qualify for the same benefits, regardless of origin.
The response to Assistance pension seemed to be determined along an age continuum. “If you didn’t comply then you must be denied, including Assistance Pension” was the position of the younger people. The middle-to-old age persons felt that the seniors who needed it should get it once they qualified because they have made their contributions to Society, and we have an obligation to care for our elderly, but the money is too small. Charles Bussue championed that point.
We heard a lot about Funeral Grant too. People loved it, but hated the amount being paid. So they recommended that it be cut out altogether and replaced by a funeral home to be operated by Social Security itself. .jpg)
Then nobody would know how much the funeral cost and everybody would have equal opportunity caskets. On the other hand, the amount could be pro-rated based on the number of contributions the deceased person has made and based on the amount of benefit that has already been collected. Oh boy!
The legal boundary of disability/invalidity pension was considered too unfair. It was an all or none situation. So even if your disability/invalidity continues, but you do something else other than what was being done before the disability/invalidity occurred, then the pension is stopped by law. Yet able bodied pensioners can continue to work and keep their pensions.
Having given their views on the existing system, persons enquired six other benefits: Unemployment, National Health Insurance, Education, Personal loans system, introduction of a voluntary pension tier and the introduction of a no-claims incentive. Some of these concepts will be explained later.
The mix of suggestions may sound like madness, but there is a method to it. To us, they were a treasure trove in that they provided invaluable insight into the thinking of our members and the raw materials for designing a road map for the future. It is now our task to wade through the waters; to assess each suggestion to determine its merits and de-merits, all in an effort to make your Social Security relevant and sustainable as we continue to provide for our members. Somewhere in this mix is a happy medium that must be found - and soon.
One thing is certain: if we want Social Security to be the same, then it has to change. We invite all insured persons, and all insured persons-to-be to join us in this reform!
