Pensions - Part 4

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture
Pensions - Part 4

Irwin Cotler in the Huff Post today went after the government on OAS. Does anyone know what the Libs did with pensions while in government? For example, did the NDP propose changes to allocate monies for larger pensions which the Libs resisted, or did the Libs get criticizes for not raising pensions, significantly, etc? I would sure to like to know. At the very least, can anyone suggest where I could find info on this.

Frankly, anytime any Liberal starts harping about social policy, I always assume this is despite their having done the same thing in government or worse.

Unionist

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Irwin Cotler in the Huff Post today went after the government on OAS. Does anyone know what the Libs did with pensions while in government? For example, did the NDP propose changes to allocate monies for larger pensions which the Libs resisted, or did the Libs get criticizes for not raising pensions, significantly, etc? 

In 1985, Mulroney partially de-indexed the CPP. In the face of a massive revolt by seniors, he backtracked a week later.

In 1996, Paul Martin tried to base clawbacks of OAS/GIS on family rather than individual income. He too had to backtrack.

That's all I recall in terms of attempts to weaken retirement security. Unfortunately, I don't remember the NDP pushing for any improvement at all, until (to their credit) they piggybacked on the CLC's campaign to double CPP benefits a couple of years ago, and they've continued to campaign on that issue. But maybe someone else will remember the kind of scenario you're describing?

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Hi Unionist, found a link http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/politics/story/2012/03/13/f-budget-2012-1995.html. It confirms the Libs considered it but I haven't found anything regarding what the NDP had proposed. I am still looking around though.

I guess it just proves what I have found is always the case with the Libs. They attack the Tories for doing something that quite often in the area of social policy and expenditures, they had considered. I just find it so rich. I mean the gap between rich and poor has increased by almost 300% under Lib and Tory govts, as has child poverty, while wages have remained stagnant, and it is harder to access social support programs like EI. It drives me crazy listening to the Libs trying to spout stuff and hoping no one will look deeply enough to find out the truth.

As I have said so many times, given the above, why would anyone calling themselves "progressive" vote Lib. I simply don't get it at all.

Hey, always very good to hear from you, even when you kick my buttSmile! Thanks again!

Unionist

Meanwhile, across the pond:

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18337884]France's Hollande to lower state pension age to 60[/url]

Quote:

New French president Francois Hollande has unveiled details of a plan to lower the retirement age to 60 for some workers - a key election pledge.

His predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy, had faced strong opposition when he raised the retirement age by two years to 62.

The move in 2010 sparked weeks of strikes across the country, mainly by public service workers.

6079_Smith_W

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/supreme-court-weighs-c...

Hmmm. I wonder if they would have called it controversial if workers had been left at the bottom of the pile, and investors' spot a the front of the line (behind the government, of course) hadn't been called into question.

It will make a difference, I am sure, though when one considers where pension funds put their money, it probably just evens out the risk a bit.

abnormal

While south of the border a couple of electoral results (no, this is not about Scott Walker)

San Jose
http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_20790991/early-returns-san-jose-voters-approving-pension-reform

Quote:
San Jose voters Tuesday handed Mayor Chuck Reed a crucial victory with his nationally watched pension reform measure passing by a decisive margin.
....
Reed's Measure B goes further than other efforts in tackling current employee pension costs. He said that as a charter city San Jose has the authority to reduce pension benefits not only for future hires, but for current employees' remaining years on the job. If courts disagree, Measure B calls for the city to take the equivalent savings in pay cuts.

Among changes called for in Measure B:
-Current employees keep pension credits already earned but must pay up to 16 percent more of their salary to continue that benefit or choose a more modest and affordable plan for their remaining years on the job.
-Limit retirement benefits for future hires by requiring them to pay half the cost of a pension.
-Suspend current retirees' 3 percent yearly pension raises up to five years if the city declares a fiscal crisis.
-Discontinue "bonus" pension checks to retirees.
-Require voter approval for future pension increases.
-Change disability retirement with the aim of limiting it to those whose injuries prevent them from working.

Reed proposed Measure B a year ago after his efforts -- from championing new tax measures to imposing 10 percent pay cuts on city employees -- failed to erase budgetary red ink that has soaked the city ledger for a decade. Though the city projects a modest $9 million surplus in the upcoming budget, thanks largely to the pay cuts and hundreds of job cuts, a $22.5 million shortfall is expected the year after.

...and the article never mentions exactly what that substantial margin is.

Here it is:
http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_16443048
69.6% for the measure. Yeah, that's substantial.

San Diego
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jun/05/pension-reform-scores-big-voters/

Quote:
A ballot initiative that would replace guaranteed pensions with 401(k)-style plans for most new city hires received overwhelming support Tuesday from San Diego voters who were clearly fed up with the decade-long civic discussion about the city's pension problems.
....
Proposition B, also known as the "Comprehensive Pension Reform" initiative, was crafted by Sanders, DeMaio, Faulconer, the pro-business Lincoln Club and the San Diego County Taxpayers Association. It eliminates pensions in favor of 401(k)s for all new hires except police officers and proposes a five-year freeze to the portion of current workers' salaries that is used to calculate future pensions.

The city's independent budget analyst estimated the initiative would save taxpayers about $950 million over 30 years if the freeze is enacted. If not, the measure increases the city's costs by $13.5 million over the same period.

The freeze is anything but guaranteed - it requires the mayor and council to act - and will almost certainly be challenged in court. One labor union has already filed a complaint with a state agency, alleging the freeze violates the state law that calls for good-faith bargaining.

What is it with these articles not having the election results in them? I assume they wrote them ahead of time, but couldn't even be bothered to put in the most recent counts.

I had to go here and scroll down:
http://www.utsandiego.com/election/results/
Only 66% in favor of the pension reform. Not quite as substantial a result as San Jose's.  

Grandpa_Bill

Seems to me:  a progressive proposal for pension reform ought to involve reducing the gap between the highest and lowest pension incomes, perhaps via adjustment of tax brackets for seniors, using additional tax collected from high pension incomes to supplement low pension incomes.

I don't expect cheers from the indexed pension crowd.

 

abnormal

Grandpa_Bill wrote:

Seems to me:  a progressive proposal for pension reform ought to involve reducing the gap between the highest and lowest pension incomes, perhaps via adjustment of tax brackets for seniors, using additional tax collected from high pension incomes to supplement low pension incomes.

I don't expect cheers from the indexed pension crowd.

If I understand what you're suggesting, that would hit unionized workers the hardest (and public sector workers would be among the hardest hit of that group) but meanwhile it would do nothing for the vast majority of people that have no pensions.

 

Grandpa_Bill

abnormal wrote:

Grandpa_Bill wrote:

Seems to me:  a progressive proposal for pension reform ought to involve reducing the gap between the highest and lowest pension incomes, perhaps via adjustment of tax brackets for seniors, using additional tax collected from high pension incomes to supplement low pension incomes.

I don't expect cheers from the indexed pension crowd.

If I understand what you're suggesting, that would hit unionized workers the hardest (and public sector workers would be among the hardest hit of that group) but meanwhile it would do nothing for the vast majority of people that have no pensions.

Well, ABN, you may be correct to say so, but darned if I can see how.  Perhaps I simply mis-spoke.

It is the retirement incomes of very high earners that would be hit the hardest--at least that was the intended import of my remark.  Surely most unionized public sector workers are not amongst the top 10%, the top 1%, the top 0.1%, and the top 0.01%. 

Further, if additional taxes collected on higher retirement incomes are used to supplement lower retirement incomes, surely that does something for the vast majority of (low income) people who have no pensions.

If not, what am I missing?

6079_Smith_W

But if that is the earning bracket you mean we aren't talking about pensions, we are talking about personal investment portfolios. I don't think any people who have the power to do otherwise would trust their future to a pension in this day and age. Even the truly good ones are likely to get poached, watered down, or erased. 

 

 

abnormal

Grandpa_Bill wrote:

abnormal wrote:

Grandpa_Bill wrote:

Seems to me:  a progressive proposal for pension reform ought to involve reducing the gap between the highest and lowest pension incomes, perhaps via adjustment of tax brackets for seniors, using additional tax collected from high pension incomes to supplement low pension incomes.

I don't expect cheers from the indexed pension crowd.

If I understand what you're suggesting, that would hit unionized workers the hardest (and public sector workers would be among the hardest hit of that group) but meanwhile it would do nothing for the vast majority of people that have no pensions.

Well, ABN, you may be correct to say so, but darned if I can see how.  Perhaps I simply mis-spoke.

It is the retirement incomes of very high earners that would be hit the hardest--at least that was the intended import of my remark.  Surely most unionized public sector workers are not amongst the top 10%, the top 1%, the top 0.1%, and the top 0.01%. 

Further, if additional taxes collected on higher retirement incomes are used to supplement lower retirement incomes, surely that does something for the vast majority of (low income) people who have no pensions.

If not, what am I missing?

First the majority of Candians outside of the public service do not have defined benefit pensions.  According to the Canadian Institute of Actuaries [url=http://www.actuaries.ca/members/publications/2009/209097e.pdf]only 17% of private sector workers in Canada[/url] are covered by a defined benefit pension plan and something like 7% of workers have a defined contribution plan.  In other words, the majority of Canadians won't have any retirement income in the traditional sense (i.e., they won't receive a monthly pension check but will instead be living off of their savings and whatever government pension(s) they may be eligible for).

And while there are definitely cases of senior executives with lavish pensions you'll also find a lot of them are in the same boat.  Even if they've got a seven or eight digit bank balance they have no "retirement income" per se (and with interest rates at their current level they won't have much in the way of investment income either).

As an aside, given the level of funding of many (most?) pension plans it's distinctly possible that even those individuals with solid retirement incomes will get hammered if the sponsor/parent company goes under.

End result is that the people with "retirement incomes" will largely be those in that 17% with defined benefit pensions and that group will disproportionately consist of unionized workers and civil servants.

Unionist

abnormal wrote:

End result is that the people with "retirement incomes" will largely be those in that 17% with defined benefit pensions and that group will disproportionately consist of unionized workers and civil servants.

Well yeah, workers with half-decent incomes, benefits, and pensions of any sort whatsoever will and have always consisted disproportionately of unionized workers (which includes public service workers - they're not a class apart).

The real new phenomenon is the "disproportionate" assault against workers on all fronts - their ability to unionize without extraordinary obstruction, the attacks against free collective bargaining, the absence of consistent political allies for workers, the resultant decline in union density in various spheres, and the apparent impotence of the labour movement to mount a coordinated and effective resistance to these phenomena.

Without a powerful and determined workers' movement, there will be no pensions of any kind for anyone - just as not a single existing minimum labour standard or public benefit plan would have come into being out of thin air and good wishes.

That's what I think, at least. So the responsibility for success, or failure, is ours alone.

Fidel

Real, yes, but new?

197 repressive pieces of anti-labour legislations enacted across Canada in the last 30 years

Quote:
 Federal and provincial governments passed 197 labour laws since 1982 that have restricted, suspended or denied collective bargaining rights for Canadian workers.

Grandpa_Bill

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But if that is the earning bracket you mean we aren't talking about pensions, we are talking about personal investment portfolios. I don't think any people who have the power to do otherwise would trust their future to a pension in this day and age. Even the truly good ones are likely to get poached, watered down, or erased.

Well, yes, that is what I'm talking about:  retirement income from all sources, whether from OAS, CPP, private pensions, RRSPs, etc.  The suggestion is simply to create additional tax brackets for the top 10%, the top 1%, the top 0.1%, and the top 0.01% retirement incomes.  The taxes collected would be allocated to supplement the bottom retirement incomes (also from whatever sources) via refundable tax credits or something equivalent:  a GAI for retired persons, if you will.

I understand why people with high-end retirement incomes would resist such a proposal, but I don't understand why anyone posting to rabble.ca would do so.  I'm obviously missing something, but what?

6079_Smith_W

Then you are really talking about INCOME from all source. It's not specifically a retirement issue. Though I can see how it might be hard to earmark that to benefit retirees.

And who's resisting? I think everyone here, including myself, is just asking for clarification. I don't think anyone has said fairer taxation is a bad idea.

 

 

 

abnormal

Grandpa_Bill wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But if that is the earning bracket you mean we aren't talking about pensions, we are talking about personal investment portfolios. I don't think any people who have the power to do otherwise would trust their future to a pension in this day and age. Even the truly good ones are likely to get poached, watered down, or erased.

Well, yes, that is what I'm talking about:  retirement income from all sources, whether from OAS, CPP, private pensions, RRSPs, etc.  The suggestion is simply to create additional tax brackets for the top 10%, the top 1%, the top 0.1%, and the top 0.01% retirement incomes.  The taxes collected would be allocated to supplement the bottom retirement incomes (also from whatever sources) via refundable tax credits or something equivalent:  a GAI for retired persons, if you will.

I understand why people with high-end retirement incomes would resist such a proposal, but I don't understand why anyone posting to rabble.ca would do so.  I'm obviously missing something, but what?

So how does this apply to someone that's simply living off of their savings.  No income, just a bank account?

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Savings??? What's that? Tongue out

abnormal

Boom Boom wrote:

Savings??? What's that? Tongue out

That's what those of us without pensions will have to live off of when we retire.

Grandpa_Bill

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Then you are really talking about INCOME from all source. It's not specifically a retirement issue. Though I can see how it might be hard to earmark that to benefit retirees.

And who's resisting? I think everyone here, including myself, is just asking for clarification. I don't think anyone has said fairer taxation is a bad idea.

Well, I'm talking about RETIREMENT ONLY income from all sources: OAS, CPP, RRSPs, private pensions, etc.  So it is specifically a retirement issue.

Will it be hard to earmark to retirees?  Seems to me that collecting the additional taxes involves revising the tax calculation schedule on the Ontario portion of the individual tax return.  Distributing the taxes collected can be achieved using the method currently used to distribute the Ontario sales tax and property/rent tax credits.

"And who's resisting?" you ask. Good question. There has been resistance from some to the GAI proposals put forth by Red Tory Tea Girl.  My suggestion, which amounts to a GAI for retirees only, may engender somewhat less resistance--I live in hope, eh?!

 

Grandpa_Bill

abnormal wrote:

So how does this apply to someone that's simply living off of their savings.  No income, just a bank account?

My intention is to introduce some fairness for low income retirees.

Seems to me that dealing with savings (from employment income, investment income, capital gains income, etc.) requires introducing fairness measures to the entire tax system, but perhaps not.

Do you have a suggestion?

abnormal

Grandpa_Bill wrote:

abnormal wrote:

So how does this apply to someone that's simply living off of their savings.  No income, just a bank account?

My intention is to introduce some fairness for low income retirees.

Seems to me that dealing with savings (from employment income, investment income, capital gains income, etc.) requires introducing fairness measures to the entire tax system, but perhaps not.

Do you have a suggestion?

Since people have already paid taxes on their savings, what's your suggestion?

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

They've already paid taxes on their pension too.

Grandpa_Bill

abnormal wrote:

Grandpa_Bill wrote:

abnormal wrote:

So how does this apply to someone that's simply living off of their savings.  No income, just a bank account?

My intention is to introduce some fairness for low income retirees.

Seems to me that dealing with savings (from employment income, investment income, capital gains income, etc.) requires introducing fairness measures to the entire tax system, but perhaps not.

Do you have a suggestion?

Since people have already paid taxes on their savings, what's your suggestion?

Yes, savings accumulated outside of a tax shelter have already been taxed.  However, it's obvious to me--to you, too?-- that the marginal tax rates for high-end incomes earned prior to retirement are too low.  Red Tory Tea Girl promotes a GAI that could be funded by higher marginal tax rates on the highest incomes:  top 10%, top 1%, top 0.1%, and top 0.01%.

If there were more equity in taxing incomes before retirement, there would be, as a result, more equity in incomes, including accumulated savings, after retirement.  Don't you agree?!

But some who comment here have little enthusiasm for GAI and others feel that tinkering with tax rates has little to do with Closing the Gap between the highest and lowest incomes.  Go figure!

Grandpa_Bill

RevolutionPlease wrote:
They've already paid taxes on their pension too.

Pension contributions are sheltered from tax until they are received as pension income during retirement.

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Thx GB, my bad, guess I was thinking of taxable benefits.

NDPP

MP Pension Hoard Hits $1 Billion

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2012/06/29/19935186.html

"The average Canadian Pension Plan payout this year is $534.10 a month compared to $5,970.00 an average MP who retired last year receives. For every $1 parliamentarians contributed to their plan last year, taxpayers gave $24.36, said Thomas. That works out to a compounded total of $4.5 million contributions compared with $110.7 million from taxpayers. 'It's highway robbery,' he said..."

yep.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

That's an eye-opener for sure.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Sheila copps the same mp who promised to get rid of the gst geta 135k annually while lamentinbg senior poverty. Hypocrite and typical lpc type!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Sheila copps the same mp who promised to get rid of the gst geta 135k annually while lamentinbg senior poverty. Hypocrite and typical lpc type!

 

Is Sheila really the worse you could come up with? She's also notorious for being a member of the Liberal 'rat pack', whatever you may have thought of them, but she also brought in what I remember was the toughest environmental legislation we've ever had; as well as Young Canada Works. I worked in Manpower and Immigration Canada and remember these things as well as Opportunities For Youth, the Local Initiatives Program, and Katimavik - all Liberal programs. Yeah, all MPs and Senators get paid far too fucking much in their pensions, but I think there are other targets equally bad or worse than Sheila Copps.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well. I think a problem with that boom boom is that the lpc types always yeah but lpk at all the good we have done and I have trouble giving them credit for anything.she wants to bring the lpc at the expense of the ndp to perserve the status quo. No thanks she gets no credit for anything from me! No way!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yeah, they're all bad, but my point is that Sheila is no worse than the rest.  Do we have a problem with NDP MPs getting their salaries and pensions? You can begrudge Shiela all you want, but what about the NDP's  Pat "loudmouth" Martin?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well I never claimed to be a martub fan but at least he has always voted the ndp line on economic justice issues. I think that is a pretty big differentiator. Sheila has never been anything but a paul martin or john manley defender.

janfromthebruce

hmm, Arthur Sheila is most definitely NOT a Paul Martin fan. In fact, it was Paul Martin who ensured someone ran against her in the riding she held for a long time, a nomination war, and she lost. She was part of the fallout of the Martin/Chretien wars.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I thought Copps was a close ally of Chretien - she was his deputy Prime Minister - no?

janfromthebruce

BB is right.

abnormal

Quote:
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) said the quarterly 10.4% interest deposit is akin to raiding the wallet of working Canadians to ensure retired or defeated parliamentarians live the high life when they turn 55.

They must serve at least six years to collect.

....
While other invested plans fluctuate in value depending on the volatility of markets, MPs have no such worries because they are guaranteed a compounded annual rate of return of 10.4% paid for by taxpayers. In contrast, the S&P/TSX composite index lost 12.2% in the last 12 months.

 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2012/06/29/19935186.html

ygtbk

CPP enhancement is going to be discussed later this month by federal and provincial finance ministers:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cpp-reform-back-on-the-nati...

If Quebec and Alberta are onside this time, something might come of it. The article says they are.

ygtbk

If this report is correct, Quebec is now onside, but not Alberta. Marceau sounds much more in favour of an enhancement than Bachand was. A workable compromise might be for premium and benefit increases to start in say 2015.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/12/16/have-enough-votes-for-cpp-reform-onta...

Why Dwight Duncan would say that CPP premium increases would create jobs is mysterious to me, though. Perhaps he could connect the dots a little. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Kevin O'Leary - whom I absolutely despise - was on CBC this morning praising Flaherty's direction on the CPP, and also saying CPP should be means tested - if you're rich, you shouldn't get it. And he wants age of eligibility raised because "people are living too long". I agree that the rich don't need it - but I think some politicians have said touching 'universality' will open all kinds of pandora's boxes. Flaherty, by the way, is saying the economy is too fragile to make any increases to the CPP - that's what O'Leary agrees with. The scumbag is basically saying he is fed up with paying higher taxes - and he's a millionaire.

ygtbk

@ Boom Boom:

I agree that making CPP means-tested is a very bad idea. The three government-provided retirement benefits are:

CPP - paid from (and based on) contribution history.

OAS - paid from general revenues subject to residency history.

GIS - paid from general revenues and means-tested.

So there's already a means-tested piece - no need to erode support for CPP by making people pay for it but not get it.

It sounds like Kevin O'Leary doesn't understand the existing system - always a good first step before changing it!

Unionist

ygtbk wrote:

Why Dwight Duncan would say that CPP premium increases would create jobs is mysterious to me, though. Perhaps he could connect the dots a little. 

Can't speak for him, but if you improve pensions, you enhance workers' ability to retire earlier. That doesn't "create jobs", but it certainly creates vacancies for young workers, thereby alleviating unemployment.

It's not the increased premiums, but the concomitant increased benefits, which "create jobs" in that sense. The story is badly written and paraphrases sloppily.

 

lagatta

Means-testing of UNIVERSAL programmes is a terrible idea. If you want more money from the affluent, close tax loopholes, create new brackets and tax them more (not to mention corporate and other taxation, including of mining resources). 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

O'Leary is a rich gasbag, why he gets television coverage beats me.

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

 I agree that the rich don't need it - but I think some politicians have said touching 'universality' will open all kinds of pandora's boxes. Flaherty, by the way, is saying the economy is too fragile to make any increases to the CPP - that's what O'Leary agrees with. The scumbag is basically saying he is fed up with paying higher taxes - and he's a millionaire.

1. It doesn't matter if the rich "need it" or not. It's their money. They contributed, as did their employers, during their work history. They should (and are), of course, be taxed at a higher rate than the rest of us. That's how society gets it back. Not, as you point out, by eliminating universality. The rich don't "need" free health care either. Or "free" roads. Or free K-12 education. Or EI. Don't mess with any of that stuff.

2. Taxes don't pay for the CPP. I'm sure O'Leary understands that.

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

O'Leary is a rich gasbag, why he gets television coverage beats me.

Because some people watch him. Tongue out

[ducks for cover...]

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I was watching CBC news and he came on. Didn't have my remote handy.

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

I was watching CBC news and he came on. Didn't have my remote handy.

Laughing

When usual means

Cannot be seen

I find a brick

Will do the trick

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

O'Leary is a rich gasbag, why he gets television coverage beats me.

You answered your own question. He gets coverage because he is a rich gasbag.  His being rich means all his opinions have merit or at least that is what MSM appears to believe.  Even our public broadcaster buys this ridiculous view of the world.  The more you exploit the more respect the MSM gives you.

Unionist

[url=http://www.canadianlabour.ca/national/news/provinces-must-stand-ottawa-c... must stand up to Ottawa on CPP: CLC says Conservatives trying to sabotage talks[/url]

Quote:

“Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is now saying that the economy is too fragile to consider even a modest increase in CPP contributions that would allow us to improve benefits to future retirees,” Georgetti says. “He is also saying that there has to be unanimous approval from the provinces before they can move on the CPP. Both of these claims are false.”

 

Georgetti says the convention is that two-thirds of the provinces representing two-thirds of the Canadian population would have to approve changes to the CPP. “Regarding the timing of improving the CPP, I would ask Mr. Flaherty, if not now, when?”

 

Georgetti adds that 60 per cent of workers have no workplace pension, while one-third of Canadians between the ages of 24 and 64 have no personal retirement savings. “There is a growing urgency about pensions. If the government will not allow workers and their employers to provide for decent pensions through the CPP, future taxpayers will have to spend billions of dollars more than they do now in social programs for retirees who will be living in poverty.”

ygtbk

Unionist wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

Why Dwight Duncan would say that CPP premium increases would create jobs is mysterious to me, though. Perhaps he could connect the dots a little. 

Can't speak for him, but if you improve pensions, you enhance workers' ability to retire earlier. That doesn't "create jobs", but it certainly creates vacancies for young workers, thereby alleviating unemployment.

It's not the increased premiums, but the concomitant increased benefits, which "create jobs" in that sense. The story is badly written and paraphrases sloppily.

 

That may be what he means - like you, I'm in the dark. The Ministry of Finance projects short-term employment losses but longer-term benefits: see:

bit.ly/U3Tcic

The Ministry of Finance numbers assume that changes would start phasing in on Jan. 1 2017, so "now is not the time to do this what with the weak economy" is not really a good rationale - the changes would start four years out.

ygtbk

And with the meeting wound up, the finance ministers will review options for expanding the CPP in June 2013: see:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/12/17/pol-cp-finance-minister...

Pages