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
I don't think being a politician for a few years renders one subsequently incapable of ever performing meaningful employment, even if the person had previously been a journalist. If anything I'd say politiking opens up many more doors of opportunity than most people have available to them.
Great comment - fully agree. Presenting MPs as the enemy, as overprivileged, is music to the ears of the real 1%.
Wasn't it the Chartist movement in 19th century Britain that had as one of its key demands a salary for MPs, so that working people could afford to run for office - and not just the propertied wealthy aristocracy?
We ought insist on a connection between these two issues:
Generally speaking, we ought insist that any discussion of the first of these issues must also speak to the second. The employment and retirement incomes of MPs and MPPs (and civil servants) must be reasonably related to the employment and retirement incomes of the public who elect and who are served.
We need to discuss the pernicious health and social well-being consequences of income inequality and we need to focus on steps to reduce the income gap. We can do this without characterizing either elected officials or people employed in the public service as good-for-nothings.
Public sector unions, by facilitating such discussions and by assisting such focusing, may garner support for their own efforts to counter attempts to slash public servants' pensions. Imagine that: public servants and their unions seeking to promote themselves as allies of the public rather than as adversaries.
How about just one bullet point that reads "The NDP supports pensions for workers". Later on, yes, we should reform MP pensions, because currently it is unreasonable for MPs, and the upper salaried public service and military, imho.
Quite obviously, Canada's incentive system for MPs is malfunctioning, if it is now having to cope with election rigging - it suggests we've turned our public service into a prized plum.
Agreed, but what if the MP pensions are disproportionate in terms of (a) qualifying period and (b) payout? What then? Do we ignore the injustice out of adherence to ideology, or do we correct it?
Why shouldn't a machinist fixing aircraft parts get the same qualifying period and payout as an MP? In principle, the machinist and MP should be entitled to the same qualifying period and payout. But because the qualifying period and the payout are an unreasonable burden on the public purse for the machinist, they're also unreasonable for the MP. At least one of the two has to be adjusted, qualifying period or payout, regardless of what we feel the Tories 'might' say. A 40 year pension at a high payout for two terms of MP work is unreasonable and it is attracting the wrong people.
Thank you Spector for saying what needs to be said. Cleary was right but just needed to say it better and differently. We often get sucked into the unprogressive vortex and don't even know it. This is one of those moments. That said, Cleary really needed a much better communication messaging here.
Exactly. An ex col in the military retires and gets $60K. That is a lot of money for someone who later consults to McDonnel Douglas for 20 years, whose contribution to society was dubious. Politicians too - they later go on to get mega dollars in the public and private sector consulting, again with a dubious contribution to society.
So 10 years of being an MP is worth their pension? No way, unless the machinist gets exactly the same qualifying period. We are elitist where political contribution to society is concerned -- we think they are 'special', more special than us. CEO pensions are the same in terms of qualifying as MPs - brief qualifying period, whereas workers have to put in their 25 years before they get their pension.
I think the NDP is pretty much like any liberal or conservative - they all believe that these people, CEOs and politicians, are special too, and deserve brief qualifying periods for good paying pensions.
So only MP's who can get re-elected consistently for 25 years should qualify for pensions? How many 50-year-olds are you going to be able to persuade to give up their careers (and pensions) and run for parliament?
I don't think it's a question of giving up their pensions at age 50, or having to get re-elected for 25 years straight to get a pension. In Ontario, anyway, post-1987 service vests in two years, or less. See:
http://www.pensionsbenefitslaw.com/2010/05/articles/another-category/imm...
MP's have a much richer pension plan than would be permitted by CRA for any private sector employer. People notice this and draw unflattering conclusions about the self-interest of MP's.
That link doesn't work. And if it's about Ontario pension law, it doesn't apply to MPs' pensions.
Rabble Incognito thinks MPs should have to put in 25 years before they qualify for pensions. Do you agree?
That sounds like the senate: Older white males rejected by voters, corporate lobbyists, and full-time party fundraisers on the take from taxpayers. Except they are made members of the stoogeaucracy for life.
Thanks for the heads-up on the link. With any luck a shortened one will work:
http://bit.ly/xsM0Ix
And no, I don't think that MP's should have to work 25 years before they get a pension - after all, in Ontario, as I pointed out, benefits vest much more quickly than that - why should MP's get a worse deal than the private sector? Whether they should get a full pension with much less than 25 years service is a different issue, and is, I think, closer to the point that Rabble Incognito is making.
No I believe I've clearly articulated my views sir, what is good for the politicians should be good enough for other workers. So, supposing 10 years (just convert 'terms' to 'years') is good enough for the Tier 1 humans (politicians) then it should be good enough for the Tier 2 humans (everyone else). If not, then a new term is required. In other words, take the qualifying period for Tier 1 (First Class Humans) like politicians and CEOs, and you convert that same qualifying period to an equivalent period for Tier 2 (Second Class Humans) who aren't politicians and voila, it's like magic, and the class distinction you treasure evaporates. The evaporation of the two tier system was my intent (as you now know since being updated by a colleague here).
Saying I said '25 years' (a preposterous amount given that we know few politicians exceed 10 or 15 years work) looks like an attempt to make a straw man and knock down that straw man and could explain why you asked me a question but failed to await my response, see above. I'll reserve making a preemptive conclusion for the present.
The key issue in my approach is not the number of years it is the equality between the politican, CEO and worker pension qualifying periods that I was attempting to describe. This means the number of years qualifying for politicians and CEOs should be the same as workers. The point was, that the injustice is any two tier pension system - one for the poor folk and one for the rich folk. Any system that attempts to narrow that gap is creating, in my view, a more 'just' and equitable system.
I think I've also said that the payouts for MPs and CEOs are huge, and disproportionate, when compared with the payouts for worker pensions. I mean, you give a full time salary for 30 years to MPs who work for 10 years, how is that reasonable/sustainable? I don't expect answers from the two tier folks - as they would prefer status quo (=conservative) higher payout for special people like MP/CEOs and less time to qualify than (sniff) the 'lesser folk'.
I never said that. Somehow those words were placed in my mouth but I never said them - fascinating. Well, mea culpa!
However, now that 25 years pensions qualifying period for politicians has been offered up, (by someone using my identity) let's work with that! Let's suppose we take a 25 year pension, and we pro rate that pension for the actual tenure of employment of the MP/CEO (let's say two terms, 8 years) now let's take the payout amount, say $2400/month (that's an ok pension) and we'll do some math - let's put the worker rate (25 years pension qualifying period) and make it the denominator, 8 years is the numerator, now let's multiply that against the payout and we get 8/25 x $2400 = circa $800/month, payable for the lifetime of the MP. Plus, at that rate, taxes are insignificant. Add that to your CPP circa $800, plus OAS circa $300 and you've got $1900 a month, tax free, before consulting gigs. That's pretty good coin, my friend, and I'd call it a 'living wage'. It also fits with austerity as a value and a virtue - something like this is something Canada can afford.
I'm not saying this is the only way to go, and surely the corporate inclined will suggest the payout to CEO/MPs isn't enough, an entitlement argument, I can only say my offering here is only one possibility among many. The point being, it is more equitable and more just than the existing two tier pension system. Is the system above the best? No, I'm not proposing it, I'm supposing it. I'm suggesting there are other computational methods that the elitists (the politicians who made the MP pension system) have never explored. Since the number of other possible computational methods is, in practical terms, infinite, cut me some slack and don't make me enumerate each possibility.
R_I's statement above makes his point very succinctly: justice demands that we narrow the gap between the best and the worst retirement incomes. The evidentiary base for this demand: decades-long research showing the close association between equality in a society and the general health and well-being of its people.
I didn't put those words in your mouth. Clearly, you want MP's to have the same qualifying period as machinists and other workers, who you say have 25-year qualifying periods.
Spector -
I guess this means I should be asking you what I want for supper.
That's not gonna happen, brother. ;)
I don't care what qualifying period for MPs should be right now, but I'd suggest others in the public service should get the same, by fiat.
That's a shame. I was so eager to impress you!
[a comment that made much more sense before R.I. re-edited his post]
Rabble_I:
One small correction, people working at comfortable, non physically demanding jobs are living longer. There has been no change in life expectancy of people working physically demanding labour for some time. In fact in the US, a recent study suggested women are living shorter lives now.
Spectory? Who knew?
Do you like fish? I'm happy you do.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/mp-benefits-taxpayers-group-atta...
Throwing the Canadian Taxpayers Federation at us? Remind me again: which of us is the Tory?
And this ex-senator will prolly enjoy $79,000 a year pension courtesy of tax-paying taxpayers regardless. I guess he was just tired of showing up for work a few afternoon shifts per year and cutting into liquid luncheons with his other semi-retired white male friends of leisure. Talk about crooks laughing all the way to the bank.
If well-funded public pensions are good enough for fat-cat senators and MPs, they should be good enough for ALL Canadians.
I agree entirely. And Harper is hoping to take away that argument by cutting back MPs' pensions, as a prelude to an assault on all public service pensions, and by extension, pensions in the private sector as well.
Harper knows there are plenty of knee-jerk stooges on the left who will gladly join in his assault on MPs' pensions. It's all part of building a social consensus that "we all have to take a hit to our extravagant pension plans" in order to pay for the massive transfer of wealth to the super-rich that has occurred before, during, and after the world financial crisis.
Oh I see you've read his mind too! Do you do it from a distance, or do you have to wear something like an antennae to delve deep within the mind?
This is just a bad reason for accepting a policy that was made by Liberals and Tories. If you want responsible pensions, then you make responsible pensions. You don't stop being a progressive because of fear of what the Tories will make of it and a half-baked non action plan.
Use the MP pensions to introduce a CPP program that bridges the gap, and adjust MP pensions because they attract the wrong kind of person.
If I had to choose, you. But I don't 'know' it. I infer it based on the fact that You're the one defending elitist pensions, a 'loser' proposal.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120125/ndp-review-mp-pension-plan-120...
Read link above about NDPers Nicole Turmel and Joe Comartin asking for an independent review of MP pensions. They're not tories either, smarty pants, but they're proposing what I'm proposing, namely, NDP style pension reform and a mechanism for it.
You seem to be alone all wrapped up in the status quo. Basically that's why you smell like a Tory, so I'm not accusing, but you smell, sir, like a Tory. I can smell them from afar - it is a 'special scent'.
The reason your proposal reiks, Spector, is because it proposes 'status quo', do nothing, for a real problem, inequity, makes NDPers 'look bad', it makes us 'look guilty' of running an entitlement platform, it's called 'bad optics' to support giving money to rich people, the 'entitled' crowd of MPs and CEOs - it lingers in the room like gas.
So in running scared and putting your head in the sand, Spector, and arse in the air, as if to avoid the scent of yourself, you actually send a message to voters "The NDP doesn't care about pensions" and that's the wrong message - that's the Tory message.
I'm listening to the leader of our party, who wants what I want, and you're just ejecting gas as far as I can see, trying to muddy the waters with a do nothing' posture. So as far as party loyalty goes too, you're suggesting we let the Tories 'lead' which the public will see as 'supporting outrageous rewards for the 1%' and quite rightly so! We will be seen as guilty of supporting the inequality.
Turmel is taking the centre court position, which is the most intelligent. Her approach - don't let the Tories be the innovators here or the public will back them up. The tories want change. Well let's beat them at their own game. I think she's right. That's why she's leading the party and not you, sir, because her ideas are better than yours. She is a breath of fresh air. She sees Tory posturing and she kicks them in the fat ass a priori.
I think we need to get behind pension reform for Canadians in the spirit of Tommy Douglas.
Canada needs leadership right now. Probably 70% of Canadians don't have an employer sponsored pension. Those who do have to work 5 times longer than politicians in order to get one.
CPP is not enough for Canadians. Canadians deserve a reformed CPP and a reformed MP pension plan.
Reduce the gap - improve CPP for regular people, just like Tommy Douglas, and you refer to Tommy Douglas when ya do it; We need to normalize MP pensions, and reduce the gap between those who only have CPP and those who have these expensive plans and low (6 year) qualifying periods.
To ignore workers with 10-15 years work but give pensions to MPs / CEOs with 6 years, is flagrantly a 'rich person's culture of entitlement' that any working person can relate to. Tories are aware of this and we would be wise to get ahead of the Tories on this one and do the job right - in a way that helps build a better more equitable society and rewards the right kind of person (e.g., the kind of politician who isn't in it for the money) but instead is in it for the betterment of ALL people.
Some roll over credits arrangement should suffice, taking what they banked and being allowed to apply it to any pension fund or RRSP once they're gotten rid of from office, which is usually the only way the public incurs any gain from it. But this fast tracked gold plated fiesta just stinks to high heaven.