babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
@ Gaian: Many Babblers have (on various threads, too numerous to mention) talked about the virtues of investing locally and in causes that they find worthwhile. The rhetoric around PRPP's has been that they're "a gift to the banks" but unless there are yet-to-emerge devils in the details, this does not seem to be necessarily so. It's not clear until we see what the licensing requirements are.
Also, simply lowering adminstration costs is nothing to sneeze at. Try compounding a 6% gross return less 2.5% per year (typical Canadian mutual fund expense) for twenty years and compare that with 6% gross less 0.5% per year (doable today with ETF's: may be doable with PRPP's depending on where their expenses come in). You may be surprised at the results.
Paying MPs Twice
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/Paying%2Btwice/6024091/story.html
"Why should Members of Parliament receive pensions vastly richer than the pensions ordinary working Canadians may obtain? Indeed, taxs laws - passed by MPs - would never permit ordinary Canadians to save for themselves enough money to fund pensions anywhere near as rich as those MPs have granted themselves...
While MPS are eligible to receive pensions of 50% of their $157,000-a-year pay beginning at age 55, provided they serve at least six years in Parliament, their plan 'has set aside essentially no assets to pay,' for these generous benefits..
let them live under the pension laws they impose on everyone else..."
politics, n: [poly: 'many' + tics: 'parasites']
You may be right about their motives. However, there is something unseemly about MP's having the richest pension plan in Canada because CRA would shut down any other plan (public or private sector) with the same benefit structure. It does look like the MP's are feathering their own nests.
Exactly right - spot on.
When one of the key issues facing Canadians is the need to boost pensions for all, the National Post finds some whose pensions are too high.
After we've lifted seniors out of poverty, doubled the CPP/QPP, and taken effective measures to protect existing workplace pension plans, we can then turn our minds to the privileges of MPs.
oops!
@ Unionist: I think you're overlooking the power of incentives. If there were a law that (for example) limited the maximum MP pension to three times the maximum CPP pension, I believe that you'd see an unprecedented flurry of activity on the CPP improvement file.
I have been looking through this thread and haven't seen anything on how much it would cost per year to finance an enhanced CPP/QPP. That is obviously the best way to do it.
How much would be needed yearly to double payments, and how much addtional revenue would be needed. I know that 3% increase in taxes on those making over will generate just over 2 billion in additonal revenue according the CCPA as discussed in the Monitor for January. Would this be enough? Anyone know where I can find some numbers on this or a study or two with which I could acquaint myself?
I'd really appreciate any info. Thanks.
Here is something on this today. Great to see Nycol Trumel finally getting loud and a bit of attention from the HP:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01/25/nycole-turmel-ndp-mp-pensions_n_.... Nycole Turmel: NDP Interim Leader Says Focus On MP Pensions A Diversion For Coming Cuts.
@Arthur. CPP is currently funded by contributions only, no government money. Assuming that the current contributions make it a sustainable fund, then to double current benefits would require doubling contributions, which in 2010 were in the neighborhood of 35B. The extra could come by doubling contributions from employees and employers, getting to nearly 20 percent of salary ( to the new max level ) or by an influx of government money to make up the extra contribution required. Hope that helps and I hope my numbers are right.
http://www.actuaries.ca/meetings/annual/2011/presentations/Session_16_Ha...Thanks Glenl. I still think that at least in part, the problem is that is a lot of money for many. Could we for example, raise overall goverment revenue through taxation on higher incomes, and then using the tax system transfer some of the many people contrinute to the CPP, that is workers, through some kind of tax credit?
I mean, if the Libs can take money from EI to balance budgets and create "the Martin miracle", why isn't what is "sauce for the goose sauce for the gander"?
Under current rules that can't be done: see:
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/oas-cpp/reports/2010/page06.shtml
and search for "full funding".
On the other hand, OAS is paid out of general revenues, so an OAS increase could be done much more easily.
Was looking at this earlier: Québec Pension Plan Figures
excerpt:
Maximum amounts for pensions beginning in 2012
Retirement pension
age 65: 986,67 $
Just saw this on Facebook: "@CBCTerry: Harper may have Old Age Supplement in his sights: tells Davos reform is coming. #cdnpoli"
CFL