Unless 95% of the voting population have indicated in a referendum that they wish retirement insurance to continue to be administered by the State the pension would be phased out but this would not be done until the effects of the Natural Dividend and Resource Taxes were being felt and incomes were becoming more equal. The REAL Party recognises that many people cannot, at present, save for their retirement. A REAL government would be open to suggestions as to how existing contracts should be honoured but current thinking is that the following procedure would be implemented: when the regulations were changed A REAL government would continue to pay, to all those over 45 years old when the regulations changed, a fully inflation adjusted pension when they reached retiring age; people between 16 and 45 would receive a pension proportional to the part of their working life that was before the regulation was changed; those under 16 when the regulations were changed would not receive a state funded pension. If there is no state pension it is expected that the Natural Dividend will be supplemented by private savings of some form of the individual's choice. The greater equality of income will ensure that every individual is able to make adequate arrangements.

We also expect that with the security of the Natural Dvidend many people will find it practical to supplement their incomes with small business ventures which would not be reliable or profitable enough to support them entirely but which will provide them with satisfaction and the money for a few extras. Even if larger organisations continue to practice ageism these small business opportunities would be available to the elderly and would be able to be reduced to part-time activities as desired.

If the people in a referendum decided to continue a form of state funded pension this might be run either on the basis of creating a contractual right, in which case it should be considered to be a state administered insurance policy and each generation should fund its own retirement, or it could be run on the basis of the working generation wishing to make a charitable donation to the retired generation. The amount of a 'charity' pension can justifiably be changed at any time and need not be sufficient to live on. The amount of a contractual pension is fixed by the 'contract' in the past. There is no justification for reducing it. The contract may be for a livable income or for a set dollar amount. A contract for a livable income is extremely risky and would involve very high taxation while the retiring generation was working. A contract for a set dollar amount would be cheaper but, of course, might turn out not to be enough to live on. A REAL government would be prepared to arrange for the administration of any of these options if they were supported by 95% of the population. We do not, however, expect there to be overwhelming support for the kind of system we have at present once the Natural Dividend is in place.