I BELIEVE the writer of the above-mentioned article recently in the Daily Mail did not research in depth before writing it.
My sister retired from employment a few years ago. She was getting a salary of over K10,000, but now she has been reduced to a monthly NAPSA peanut salary of K1,500. She is a widow who is renting a house and has children to take to school. Where is the poverty alleviation there?
My brother-in-law was getting a NAPSA monthly salary of K500. He had six children and was renting a house. He died a few months ago, hence he has forfeited his NAPSA contributions to the State. Mind you, the money he has forfeited was the same cash that he was contributing to NAPSA his entire working life. What social security is that?
Are you sure the bullet points illustrated in the article match what I have stated above?
What empowerment is there with someone getting K500 as monthly salary? What security is there when someone dictates how you should be spending your money by saying they cannot give you all your contribution as a lump sum because you are going to misuse? I have been investing throughout my working life, so how I will use my investment is none of anybody’s business.
The 20 percent accumulative compound penalty slapped on employers for delayed payments is very retrogressive, to say the least.
NAPSA should revert to giving retirees the lump sum of their hard-earned money all at once.
Using these illustrations, contributing to NAPSA has more disadvantages than advantages.
CONCERNED NAPSA MEMBER