By Elvin Bailey
Everybody had an opinion. Some persons stated theirs, others simply agreed with the speaker before them. Some persons ‘steuped’ in disagreement; some clapped to show their agreement. Yet others said nothing except mumble after the meeting. We encouraged all responses, especially since all persons will become affected and since it belongs to all of us who have been, who are, and who will be contributors to Social Security.
At the proverbial end of the day, boundaries were established. These are the boundaries of the people’s tolerance. The fact that some agreed and some did not really did not matter at that stage: what mattered is that we were able to get the thoughts of the people and are now subjecting those ideas to actuarial studies to determine the cost and benefit of each one, to determine what will hurt or help the system, and to determine the sequence in which changes can or will be made. Here then are the new boundaries.
The upper limit for pension age can be set at 65, raised from its present level of 62 years to age 65, but in stages. People who are close to pension age and who have been paying over the years should suffer no movement; the change must be offered to those persons who are newcomers to the system. Other suggestions were that the pension age could be kept at age 62, but make those who remain in the workforce after 62 continue to pay contributions (above the 1% that is currently applicable). Full earned pension could be paid to the insured person, but only if and when that person withdraws fully from the workforce. A particularly interesting suggestion was made: if the pension age is advanced, that age should vary according to the risk associated with the job so that workers in high risk jobs would benefit from earlier retirement.
Changes in the way pensions are calculated would also be tolerable. Some persons are prepared to keep the best 3-year average of the last 15 years to calculate pension, others agreed that the best 5-year average of the last 20 years could apply. Nobody recommended career average. Carry up the minimum qualifying period from 500 contributions, and instead of giving 3, 2, and 1 pension point for each decade of work, each decade could have the same value. Meanwhile, rework pension the formula so that everybody, everybody, gets access to a gratuity (with a reduced pension), just like government does! And please note the ‘unfairness’ of paying one person EC$300.00 per month while paying some EC$3,600. The explanation that all benefits payable by Social Security are indexed to wages fell on deaf ears. Redistribution is the proposed answer!
Contributions have been set at the rate of 11% (5+5+1) since 1986.
Yes, an increase would be tolerable, but not more than 3% more and only if and when wages are increased. And more benefits must come with it, benefits such as Health Insurance, Unemployment and Education. Permission was granted to Social Security to make “them” pay on all of their wages, not just on the first EC$6,500.00. The “them” referred to were the 5 to 6% of workers in the Federation whose wages were higher than the ceiling on which contributions are payable. When we explained that “them” pay more in levy than “us”, we were told that government should give up some of the levy extracted from wages of EC$6501.00 upwards, as its sacrifice to the sustainability of the Fund. Also, cut out exemptions. Everyone who works here should pay here!
Sickness was confronted head on. It appeared to be the most contentious issue. Limits should be set on entitlements - why should a person get money out of Social Security when he is sick during his working years, get contributions credit as if he were still at work and still get the same rate of pension as someone who maintains his health all the time? Excessive sickness claims should weaken pension payments, although no one was prepared to define ‘excessive’. Besides, sick people are those who are lying in a hospital bed! The others are merely indisposed, “not feeling well” rather than sick. Sometimes you can even see these sick people down-town, liming. Other persons attempted a compromise by suggesting that the qualifying period for sick benefits should be extended to 5 days instead of the existing 4 days.
Survivorship. The biggest concern about survivorship was that the Social Security law determines and defines survivors as spouse, dependent children and parents; regardless of how unkind spouse, children and parents have been during the life of the insured person. Persons demanded the right to say who should get what, as a result of their contributions, preferring to reward the kindness of caretakers irrespective of whether the caretaker is/was family or friend or employee – or Government.
It was very difficult to explain why, when a survivor is a spouse under the age of 45 years, the benefit was only payable for 1 year, while for those over 45, it was payable for life or until re-commitment. Participants also re-defined a dependent child as one who is attending university, even after the child attains age 16. Right now, the absolute cut off point is 18 if the child is still in school, 16 years if the child has left school. Some persons wanted age 25 to be the cut off point.
(to be continued next week)
Correction
Two weeks ago, in the commentary entitled “Improving due process”, I indicated that an appellant has a right to choose amongst the panel of the tribunal, and that for a female, there is to be a female member of the panel. Legally, that is not so. The appellant has the right of objection, not choice; and a female is not legally entitled to a female panelist. Thank you, Chairman Hamilton, for the clarification.
.jpg)
.jpg)