Thinking of retiring early? CPP changes may make you think again.

88 posts / 0 new
Last post
radiorahim radiorahim's picture
Thinking of retiring early? CPP changes may make you think again.

I was alerted on FB to this article in the Globe and Mail on changes to the Canada Pension Plan that were implemented as part of the 2009 Tory budget bill.

http://tinyurl.com/22ldnwz

Previously if you elected to collect your CPP retirment benefits at age 60, your pension would have been reduced by 30%.    Effective in 2016, these benefits will be reduced by 36%.  These changes are gradually being phased in over the next 4-5 years.

So, if you were born in 1956 or later, you're going to take a bigger "hit" if you decide to retire earlier.

On the other hand, if you elect not to collect your CPP until after 65, your benefits will increase by 8.4% for each year you delay instead of the current 6%.   So you'd get a 142% pension at age 70 instead of the current 130% pension.

You can find more detailed info in a Service Canada .pdf file at the link below:

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/isp/pub/factsheets/ISPB-348-11-10_E.pdf

This change was sort of "snuck in" to the 2009 budget implementation bill.   What the Harper government is in the habit of doing lately, is throwing everything including the kitchen sink into the budget, and since it's a matter of confidence, defeating the bill means bringing the government down.    Since the opposition parties are in terror about being blamed for an early election, Harper gets away with it all.

From what I can see, this is a sort of "back door" way to raise the retirement age. The Tories are discouraging workers from retiring early, and encouraging them to hang in at work longer.

It'll have repercussions for younger workers in that older workers will hang in longer then they really want to, and it'll be longer till certain jobs open up for the young.

Alot of workers from the manufacturing sector in say their late 50's or early 60's, burn through their severance pay, then their EI benefits, can't find work and so just take an early pension.  It's not exactly easy for older workers to get hired.

As these changes are phased in, these workers are going to take a hit.

Also, many employer-based pension plans reduce the amount of pension benefits you receive by the amount you're getting from CPP.   So, if you're getting less from CPP, more money is going to be drawn out of the employer-based pension plans.   Also folks will burn through their RRSP savings earlier.

We learn of this in the context of Flaherty and company sabotaging plans to improve the CPP supported by labour, senior's organizations and most provincial finance ministers.

So, the key to changing this and so many other things is for the opposition parties to grow a spine so that we can get rid of this awful government.

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

It's pretty depressing. Just imagine how much more miserable our third age (retirement) will be when they claw away at universal healthcare in addition to these pension changes.

George Victor

Thanks for that info and observations, radiorahim.

Perhaps we can get those "younger workers" to tell pollsters they plan to turn out at election time, providing the "spine" needed by opposition parties that aren't just into self-immolation?  Hell, enough of them declaing those intentions would stop the Cons in their bloody tracks.  They move incrementally, but only based on their scientific assessment of those who bother to vote.

kropotkin1951

George you've posed a chicken and egg dilemma.  Frankly it seems to be the ongoing disagreement on tactics that has resulted in many damaged threads.

The current question with the recurring theme is; Does the party getting a spine attract voters or do we have to wait to see the voters change before a party should adopt and seriously promote a principled policy?

I personally think that we play into Harper's hands by allowing him to frame the issues and by being too timid to put out forthright policies in opposition to the status quo.  I do not consider talking left wing politics to be "self-immolation" because it is not the accepted MSM status quo.  Hell that is the reason we need to be educating and leading the parade not standing around waiting to see which way the crowd is moving and then rushing to get in front of it. The BC NDP HST fight is a perfect example of the later. 

The NDP needs to be educating the younger workers and making them believe the party has policies that speak directly to them.  But when you do that you are in fact targeting the non-voters and thus capable of getting out of the box that Harper plays in, "those who bother to vote."

KenS

I havent seen the discussions you are referring to. But bear in mind that George is speaking for George. Don't impute from that to what you think is the NDPs intentions on CPP and pensions in general, or what people like me might be thinking.

KenS

If you think that it has not been made a big deal of since the Flaherty bait and switch because of 'timidness'- you are wrong.

The NDP is going to make CPP a major issue as much as it can. Leaving it be for now is a tactical choice. Since I can only make guesses why that is, I dont feel like I have anything to agree or disagree with. So I'll wait to see what comes next. I'm confdent it is coming. No, I dont say that about every issue where this comes up. And sometimes I say that the waiting by the party is a de facto surrender of inititiative. But not in this case. The issue is not going away, as some will if you dont keep up a constant stream.

And I'm absoluttely certain the 'brain trust' is not waiting around to see which way the wind blows. They already know what they want- a strong program for beginning CPP enhancements will be part of that. Nor is this going to be difficult.

George Victor

KenS wrote:

I havent seen the discussions you are referring to. But bear in mind that George is speaking for George. Don't impute from that to what you think is the NDPs intentions on CPP and pensions in general, or what people like me might be thinking.

 

Great Gaia, I've read Lakoff, and he suggests framing issues so that people can understand what the hell you're talking about. The likelihood of that happening in your case, Ken, is absolutely zero. Unless, of course, you are ready to argue that the voter turnout is not seen in the statistical record, but only in your mind.   Don't ever presume that your endless prattle is anything other than that.

kropotkin1951

KenS wrote:

I havent seen the discussions you are referring to. But bear in mind that George is speaking for George. Don't impute from that to what you think is the NDPs intentions on CPP and pensions in general, or what people like me might be thinking.

KenS when I am talking about the NDP I say so. Please to not impute to my posts any slur or degradation of the NDP unless I state it as such.  And no I don't mistake you for George.  I don't think you would have posted this little gem about him.

Quote:

The likelihood of that happening in your case, Ken, is absolutely zero. Unless, of course, you are ready to argue that the voter turnout is not seen in the statistical record, but only in your mind.   Don't ever presume that your endless prattle is anything other than that.

KenS

Well, there is obviously a lot of water under the bridge around here. So I cant speak to that.

But enhancing CPP is not rocket science George. And its one of the few public spending domains where a broad swath of the public is ready both for paying more for contributions, and already has enough of a stake and concern to not necessarily run off immeiately into uncertainty when the government and the media start droaning about payroll tax increases the job killers.

As focused as Lakoff is on frames, he also knows that you need the frame building benefits of substantive social change agenda victories. And where you are most ready, you take them.

And I'm confident we're ready, and the NDP is ready on the front of CPP enhansements and pension security in general. [Moving on from relatively disengaged public support, to something people feel they have a stake in]. And when the governement goes, if not before if Harper wants to buy some votes, the NDP will be in a position to realize the enhancements. Among other things, the popularity of this being too great for the Liberals to seriously consider waffling.

That in general outline is the hope, and I think its quite realistic.

George Victor

All of which is TRUE, and I've no idea who, hereabouts, would even attempt to refute it.

What the NDP has suggested doing FIRST, however, is adding more to the GIS so that the folks (lots of women from the past) who did not work outside the home and who have bugger all coming out of the CPP, payments from which are dependent on how much one earned in one's working life. These old girls are last to get out of the hospital wards and into long term care facilities because they can't put up the monthly charge...certainly not  the more than $2,200 monthly for a private room that can get you out of that hospital bed first. The $1600 and change for a ward - often four to a bathroom - usually isn't there either...

And on the investing side of pensions....you've probably seen how the BIG interest now is investing in such properties as toll roads (like the CPP investment board's interest in the 407).  Because they are not government regulated, increases in the tolls keep pace (and more) with the cost of living...a perfect income investment.  I would dearly love to hear the NDP break fully out of its "tax the corporations" tax mantra and begin to consider just what social democrats should be investing in these days as public policy, as a sign of commitment to a green, sustainable future, etc. Heard anything lately?

George Victor

How about you, kroppy? Anything substantive to add in that regard...or anywhere else?

KenS

Talki about me being hard to pair with George. The last 3 word phrase is COMPLETEL gratuitous. Before that is challenging enough, but fair game. Hard enough for anyone to handle, but possible. But the hyper-gratuitous addition kills off any chance of discussion.

Hey Krop: on George's behalf, and in the spirit of the season, George will listen too. He's really not as bad as he sounds.

George Victor

"...kills off any chance of discussion."

 

That's some relief.

George Victor

Meanwhile, back on the subject of retirement, here is the latest facing public service workers in the U.S. where state and municipal budgets are beyond strained:

 

The NY Times

January 1, 2011

Public Workers Facing Outrage as Budget Crises Grow

 

By MICHAEL POWELL

 

FLEMINGTON, N.J. - Ever since Marie Corfield's confrontation with Gov. Chris Christie this fall over the state's education cuts became a YouTube classic, she has received a stream of vituperative e-mails and Facebook postings.

"People I don't even know are calling me horrible names," said Ms. Corfield, an art teacher who had pleaded the case of struggling teachers. "The mantra is that the problem is the unions, the unions, the unions."

Across the nation, a rising irritation with public employee unions is palpable, as a wounded economy has blown gaping holes in state, city and town budgets, and revealed that some public pension funds dangle perilously close to bankruptcy. In California, New York, Michigan and New Jersey, states where public unions wield much power and the culture historically tends to be pro-labor, even longtime liberal political leaders have demanded concessions - wage freezes, benefit cuts and tougher work rules.

It is an angry conversation. Union chiefs, who sometimes persuaded members to take pension sweeteners in lieu of raises, are loath to surrender ground. Taxpayers are split between those who want cuts and those who hope that rising tax receipts might bring easier choices.

And a growing cadre of political leaders and municipal finance experts argue that much of the edifice of municipal and state finance is jury-rigged and, without new revenue, perhaps unsustainable. Too many political leaders, they argue, acted too irresponsibly, failing to either raise taxes or cut spending.

A brutal reckoning awaits, they say.

art-of-walking

Excuse me (if I haven't read it mentioned hereabouts) but doesn't the Harper/Flaherty move to privatize CPPs (despite the latter's apparent dog-leg in thinking of late), smack, slightly, o'George Bush's push for Social Security "private accounts'? back in '05?

the stakeholders in that particular exercise responded with such unholy uproar, that the notion was promptly and mercifully scuttled, though

the stock market, into which those 'private accts' would have been invested, then crashed, lending credence to the private acct. detractors

What's that? the price of oil (and everything else, as a result) on the rise again? (as it was in 05 -- while the market arguably nosedived around it...)

Quick! infuse a big hit o' CPP dough into a down, down-again market....  with luck, the Cons can claim "Economic Success!" Good Timing! for an election!

If they can't hurry that infusion along, though, they'll be cutting it rather finely, since any 'success' could, come Spring, turn out to have been very, very temporary (given the decided downturn doom-and-gloom in US economic forecasting)

(they're probably feeling some hedge, in their Big Bet, knowing, full-well, that oil will continue to rise in price, because, or in spite, of a crashing US economy,... so the message would be: "Throw Your Futures into Oil!", but they can't quite come out and say that) 

Oldsters would certainly give pause before entertaining any revulsion at the Tar Sand, or it's Tentacle to the W, the new Enbridge tube...

just relax, lay back in the ol' hammock, and try not to think about the implications, let alone alternatives...)

art-of-walking

George Victor wrote:

''a rising irritation with public employee unions''


but isn't all that just driven by the same, long-cherished (and long-winded) goal of conservatives: to kill the unions?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/karoli/grover-norquist-states-go-bankrupt-itll-fee

KenS

Ditto with the sweet bribe to wait for taking your CPP until 70. The big benefit for the government is not money saved- I'm not sure there is any of that. The benefit is political: one of the wedges for making the normal starting point 70.... with a lot more reduction than now at earlier ages.

[drift] For a couple it looks good under this set-up for the one with the lesser CPP to take it at 60. And the one with the greater to wait until 70. Works out rather well at lest for those of us who have little or no pension from the workplace. The partner waiting until 70 gets a higher GIS in the meantime. And especially well if as in our case the higher CPP earner is younger. But I haven't confirmed this yet. [un-drift]

See- there's an example of someone who will find it beneficial to wait until 70- even though we will be retired. There will be lots of us in a good position to exercise that option. And the numbers of us waiting until 70- volunarily and not under duress- will be used as a battering room to 'prove' that no one needs CPP until 70.

George Victor

art-of-walking wrote:

George Victor wrote:

''a rising irritation with public employee unions''


but isn't all that just driven by the same, long-cherished (and long-winded) goal of conservatives: to kill the unions?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/karoli/grover-norquist-states-go-bankrupt-itll-fee


Of course.
But first the dumb, greedy bastards had to nearly destroy the economy and bring about social conditions by which they could come to demonize the unions and find enough bitter people to help them in their campaign.
And when the Republican Party "defined tax cuts as tax relief, the right also defined those who were against tax cutsas essentially bad people." (Howard Dean in foreword to "don't think of an elephant."
You'd think it was all a big plot, eh? But it depended on a lot of greed and ignorance in the land of the free to bring it off. (Dean can't say that, of course. : )

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

In my opinion, the worst aspect of the new CPP rules is one that hasn't been focused on in this thread. To quote from the government info:

Quote:
If you are under 65 and you work while receiving your CPP retirement pension, you and your employer will have to make CPP contributions. These contributions will increase your CPP retirement benefits.

Under the current rules, once you begin receiving early CPP benefits, you are not allowed (and a fortiori not required) to make any contributions to the fund, even if you continue to work. This commonly results in savings between ages 60 and 65 of over $2,000 a year (or double that if you are self-employed), which greatly offsets the disadvantage of the reduction in benefits.

Under the new rules, starting in 2012, if you are working you are obliged to continue paying into the fund even as you are receiving reduced benefits. This has the effect of reducing the net benefit of early CPP even further, until age 65, when you no longer are obliged to contribute. Of course, additional contributions build up your pension credits, but you'd have to live a long, long time to get back those thousands of extra dollars in increased pension benefits.

So after 2011 the only people who ought to consider applying for early CPP are those over 59 who have no job and have no foreseeable prospect or intention of getting a job or engaging in self-employment before age 65. Early CPP therefore becomes a benefit available only to the desperately poor who can't work, or the very well off who don't need to. 

art-of-walking

dup. del.

art-of-walking

George Victor wrote:

art-of-walking wrote:

George Victor wrote:

''a rising irritation with public employee unions''


but isn't all that just driven by the same, long-cherished (and long-winded) goal of conservatives: to kill the unions?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/karoli/grover-norquist-states-go-bankrupt-itll-fee


''Of course.
''But first the dumb, greedy bastards had to nearly destroy the economy...''
''You'd think it was all a big plot, eh? But it depended on a lot of greed and ignorance in the land of the free to bring it off.

hey! I concur, wholeheartedly, that: 1) it was ''dumb'', and 2) ''greedy'' -- ''bastards'' in all likelihood -- AND that 3) they did depend on ''a lot of greed'' -- but, of course, it is 'a lot of greed' which they have cultivated, for long and long -- y'know, the 'rugged individualist'-kinda imagery?, which encourages men to compete, rather than cooperate, and tends to wanna divide, rather than unite? and likely works to exclude others, too, proportionately, as the inner-exclusivity swells, mebbe? -- then there's the whole ''work hard enough and someday you'll be rich'' fallacy they've flogged forever -- and that ''ignorance''? of course ! they've nurtured that for ages, too!! -- think Murdoch's FOX --
I disagree, though, with your statement that they "nearly" destroyed the economy... the thing is, I'm not convinced that the rolling snowball has quite fully developed into the inevitable, fullblown snowslide, and has yet to reach the sleepy hamlet -- imho we're still just experiencing the shockwave, on our whiskers
Wait, for $prrrring to $prrrrung... Hark! there's thunder in the hills..
Oh, and I also believe ''it was all a big plot" -- yes, 'tis a vast right-wing conspiracy -- they've wanted to kill all vestiges of The New Deal, and Bush was the purrfect vehicle ("My constituents - the have$, and the have-more$") to kick-start the snowball's descent, to finish it off.
Okay, if it isn't 'a vast, rightwing conspiracy', it certainly seems that all the right wheels have been greased(*) for just such a scenario to unfold -- and then cascade... let's see, for one, witness the fervent battle-cry for 'no new taxes', and to "cut taxes!", while, at the same time, inexplicably, there's that niggly little multi-front (and endless, by all accounts) War that Bush initiated, upon which, apparently, our very survival depends, so, therefore, it's perfectly logical that that IS where all the dough will flow -- and will continue to do so, till we "Win!"... oh, sorry people... Lo! the social program cupboards are bare, as a result! Yes, It's dumb. Excruciatingly so. But beautiful
(*while the left wheels seem to have seized)

George Victor

George Victor wrote:

art-of-walking wrote:

George Victor wrote:

''a rising irritation with public employee unions''


but isn't all that just driven by the same, long-cherished (and long-winded) goal of conservatives: to kill the unions?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/karoli/grover-norquist-states-go-bankrupt-itll-fee


Of course.
But first the dumb, greedy bastards had to nearly destroy the economy and bring about social conditions by which they could come to demonize the unions and find enough bitter people to help them in their campaign.
And when the Republican Party "defined tax cuts as tax relief, the right also defined those who were against tax cutsas essentially bad people." (Howard Dean in foreword to "don't think of an elephant."
You'd think it was all a big plot, eh? But it depended on a lot of greed and ignorance in the land of the free to bring it off. (Dean can't say that, of course. : )

And here's the American "taxpayer" and onetime citizen being appealed to in all their ignorant glory:
NYTimes, January 3, 2011
Strained States Turning to Laws to Curb Labor Unions
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Faced with growing budget deficits and restive taxpayers, elected officials from Maine to Alabama, Ohio to Arizona, are pushing new legislation to limit the power of labor unions, particularly those representing government workers, in collective bargaining and politics.

State officials from both parties are wrestling with ways to curb the salaries and pensions of government employees, which typically make up a significant percentage of state budgets. On Wednesday, for example, New York's new Democratic governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, is expected to call for a one-year salary freeze for state workers, a move that would save $200 million to $400 million and challenge labor's traditional clout in Albany.

But in some cases - mostly in states with Republican governors and Republican statehouse majorities - officials are seeking more far-reaching, structural changes that would weaken the bargaining power and political influence of unions, including private sector ones.

For example, Republican lawmakers in Indiana, Maine, Missouri and seven other states plan to introduce legislation that would bar private sector unions from forcing workers they represent to pay dues or fees, reducing the flow of funds into union treasuries. In Ohio, the new Republican governor, following the precedent of many other states, wants to ban strikes by public school teachers.

Some new governors, most notably Scott Walker of Wisconsin, are even threatening to take away government workers' right to form unions and bargain contracts.

"We can no longer live in a society where the public employees are the haves and taxpayers who foot the bills are the have-nots," Mr. Walker, a Republican, said in a speech. "The bottom line is that we are going to look at every legal means we have to try to put that balance more on the side of taxpayers."

 

Note: "State officials from both parties are wrestling with ways to curb the salaries AND PENSIONS of government employees."

art-of-walking

''we are going to look at every legal means we have to try to put that balance more on the side of taxpayers''

I thought (until I witnessed G. Campbell tearing them up) that contracts were ''legal'', and binding.

the only ''legal means'' available, once signed, was ''re-negociation''...

right... so it IS a plot: bankrupt the nation by creating an endless "war'', then cut social programs and kill the unions...

the FOX-dumbed US electorate would buy Mr. Walker's argument, oblivious, as they are, that hard-won contracts, with labor, are in their own best self-interest, and that the alternative -- privatization, or out-sourcing, of government jobs, will result, inevitably, in woefully inadequate services

George Victor

It's "bankrupt the nation by creating an endless "war''," AND getting a majority to vote for lower taxes for about three decades in a row. Ahrnie's California began it all back in the late 70s.

josh

"Faced with growing budget deficits and restive taxpayers, elected officials from Maine to Alabama, Ohio to Arizona, are pushing new legislation to limit the power of labour unions, particularly those representing government workers, in collective bargaining and politics.

. . . .

Of all the new governors, John Kasich, Republican of Ohio, appears to be planning the most comprehensive assault against unions. He is proposing to take away the right of 14,000 state-financed child care and home care workers to unionize. He also wants to ban strikes by teachers, much the way some states bar strikes by the police and firefighters.

"If they want to strike, they should be fired," Mr. Kasich said in a speech. "They've got good jobs, they've got high pay, they get good benefits, a great retirement. What are they striking for?"

. . . .

"They're throwing the kitchen sink at us," said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. "We're seeing people use the budget crisis to make every attempt to roll back workers' voices and any ability of workers to join collectively in any way whatsoever.""

 

http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article1856913.html

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

I raised this issue at the outset because this particular change to the CPP has sort of "flown under the radar" of practically everyobody.   Making somewhat younger workers aware of it I think could add some fuel to the fire around the issue of CPP reform.

In France, young people were very much drawn into the fight to preserve France's pension system.

The CLC has done a pretty amazing job so far with their campaign to double the CPP, winning the support of at least six provincial finance ministers.   This is one of those circumstances where even in a deep financial crisis, we have an opportunity to make some genuine improvements in people's lives.   In other words rather than being on the defensive, progressives can go on the offensive and maybe even win.

Finance Minister Flaherty's proposed "PRPP" crap shows that the campaign for CPP reform has been effective.   He's had to respond.

 

 

 

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

M. Spector wrote:

In my opinion, the worst aspect of the new CPP rules is one that hasn't been focused on in this thread. To quote from the government info:

Quote:
If you are under 65 and you work while receiving your CPP retirement pension, you and your employer will have to make CPP contributions. These contributions will increase your CPP retirement benefits.

Under the current rules, once you begin receiving early CPP benefits, you are not allowed (and a fortiori not required) to make any contributions to the fund, even if you continue to work. This commonly results in savings between ages 60 and 65 of over $2,000 a year (or double that if you are self-employed), which greatly offsets the disadvantage of the reduction in benefits.

Under the new rules, starting in 2012, if you are working you are obliged to continue paying into the fund even as you are receiving reduced benefits. This has the effect of reducing the net benefit of early CPP even further, until age 65, when you no longer are obliged to contribute. Of course, additional contributions build up your pension credits, but you'd have to live a long, long time to get back those thousands of extra dollars in increased pension benefits.

So after 2011 the only people who ought to consider applying for early CPP are those over 59 who have no job and have no foreseeable prospect or intention of getting a job or engaging in self-employment before age 65. Early CPP therefore becomes a benefit available only to the desperately poor who can't work, or the very well off who don't need to. 

Thanks MS.   Yes you're right.    This is another, perhaps even nastier aspect of these changes.

Roscoe

M. Spector wrote:

In my opinion, the worst aspect of the new CPP rules is one that hasn't been focused on in this thread. To quote from the government info: 

Hmmm. The worst aspect of the CPP is the entitlement individuals award themselves to the detriment of those tuly in need.

Individuals who choose to take early pensions and continue working should accept less than those who have no choice but to take CPP benefits before age 65.

Greedy boomers playing the percentages without care for either their less advantaged peers or future generations are a bane on society. These changes will lever actuarial changes that give certainty to the CPP for future generations.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

You blame people who take their legal pension entitlement for the fact that other people are "less advantaged"? What a reactionary, divisive point of view.

It's evidently never occurred to you that every year thousands of Candian workers in their fifties are laid off or forced into early "retirement" while most of their contemporaries who are lucky enough to be still working are in their peak earning years. Nobody wants to hire a 56 year-old worker into a decent-paying job. Trust me on this. The alternatives are to get a McJob in the retail or service sector, or pursue some kind of self-employment. When age 60 finally rolls around, these people look forward with desperation to being able to receive their meagre, reduced CPP benefits that they have earned through decades of contributions into the fund. The pension itself isn't enough to live on, so they have to keep on working, assuming they have somewhere to work and are in good enough health. Eventually they are compelled by circumstance to stop working, and they will then rely on their CPP benefits, reduced for the rest of their lives, together with old age pension and whatever savings they may have.

Anyone who imagines that older workers on government pensions in 21st century Harperland are ripping off the system doesn't know shit. Read a fucking newspaper for once:

Quote:
As the first wave of baby boomers turn 65, the number of Canadians approaching retirement is growing at a pace never seen in Canadian history.

Problem is, for many of them, their bank accounts aren't.

Freedom 55, some Canadians are finding, is barely attainable at age 65 or even 75.

The crush of the economic downturn - which saw many boomers loose large chunks of their life savings - has forced some of them to work several more years than initially envisioned in their retirement plans.

Others simply haven't socked away enough of a nest egg over the decades to live comfortably in what should be the best years of their lives.

A majority of Canadians working in the private sector don't have pension plans.

The boomers may be coming in waves, but a financial tsunami could be in their wake.

"You'll find in five to 10 years time there's people who will wake up and say, 'Crap, what's happened?' " says Robert Robotham, chairman of the Calgary chapter of CARP, Canada's association for the 50-plus.

Ideally, boomers will have 60 to 70 per cent of their normal employment income once they reach retirement, Robotham notes, but anecdotal evidence suggests many are only receiving 30 per cent, or slightly more, of their previous working wages.

[url=http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Aging+boomers+face+retirement+witho...

Fidel

I think Jeffrey Sachs referred to the life savings of Russian citizens pre-perestroika as "pesky overhang." Financial independence for some large percentage of working class slobs and free market baloney don't mix apparently. The very cold war era slogan, Shop 'til you drop, has become just, Work 'til you drop.

It took us two world wars and a cold war to come to the realization that work will make us free. Happy hoser-stroika, everyone, the yoke's on us.

Roscoe

M. Spector wrote:

You blame people who take their legal pension entitlement for the fact that other people are "less advantaged"? What a reactionary, divisive point of view.

Anyone who imagines that older workers on government pensions in 21st century Harperland are ripping off the system doesn't know shit. Read a fucking newspaper for once.

Ideally, boomers will have 60 to 70 per cent of their normal employment income once they reach retirement, Robotham notes, but anecdotal evidence suggests many are only receiving 30 per cent, or slightly more, of their previous working wages.

[url=http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Aging+boomers+face+retirement+witho...

What a nasty rant. Classic 'angry middle-aged male' bluster. If you didn't descend into Forum road rage at the drop of an opinion, you might have comprehended that I do not consider "greedy boomers" and the "less advantaged" to be one and the same.

You, obviously, do know shit.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

You're the one who wrote: "Greedy boomers playing the percentages without care for either their less advantaged peers or future generations..."

It's obvious to everyone you don't consider "greedy boomers" and the "less advantaged" to be one and the same. Nothing I posted suggests you believe they are the same.

I made it quite clear that you were in fact trying to pit them against each other, as if the very fact of "greedy" boomers receiving their legal pension entitlement was somehow responsible for others being less advantaged.

It's hard to imagine a more ignorant point of view.

 

George Victor

"But Jack Mintz, a financial expert and head of the school of public policy at the University of Calgary, isn't convinced baby boomers or seniors of today are in dire financial straits."

 

Save the anger for this bastard, the financial institutions he promotes, and the governments of Alberta, Quebec (which isn't mentioned...did you notice?....and we know why) and wee Jimmy Flaherty and cadre.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I'm sure our friend Roscoe is a great fan of Jack Mintz.

George Victor

I'm not sure, MS. I read it differently.   And by the way, this story out of Calgary without mentioning Quebec being onside with Alberta,is a glaring demonstration of the way in which they shun any association out there... particularly now that the PM's every press release from now until election time, associates Liberals and NDP with them there separatists.   

KenS

Nova Scotia Finance Minister: Alberta foiling CPP change
Ottawa wrong to insist all provinces OK revision, minister says

Quote:

Steele said the Harper government is needlessly holding up the proposed expansion by insisting it must secure unanimous approval from the provinces. He said the law states Ottawa requires approval from only two-thirds of the provinces representing two-thirds of the population. Ottawa's stand has given Alberta an effective veto, he said.

"Alberta's opposition to (expansion) of the Canada Pension Plan seems to be based on ideology," Steele said after a provincial cabinet meeting in Halifax.

"They simply don't believe that there should be a public response to what they consider to be a private issue. It's not a view that the government of Nova Scotia shares. . . . It seems unlikely they will ever be persuaded that this (expansion) will be the right thing to do."

....

Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter said Ottawa's decision to reject expansion of the public pension is wrong-headed.

"Like so many national questions, if you wait to get unanimity, then it's simply not going to happen," he said Thursday, adding that Ottawa should stick with the two-thirds amending formula.

"This is a very significant issue for Canadians. It's one that has been 30 years in the making. . . . We are now getting to a point where we are essentially retiring people into income insecurity."

Dexter rejected Menzies' suggestion that expanding public pension benefits would put an onerous burden on Canadian businesses, saying the lack of an adequate pension plan will result in social consequences that end up costing even more

KenS

A reminder that there were 2 recent predecessor threads that were more comprehensive about the politics around CPP reform.

Still open actually. Though any comments might as well be in this newer thread, which is both about the overall politics and the details of what we are getting.

Labour's demand to double CPP/QPP benefits - part 2

George Victor

Yes, Ken.  Waiting to see/hear more from labour, which should be preparing to do battle with the anti-state forces of reaction and downsizing.

Roscoe

M. Spector wrote:

You're the one who wrote: "Greedy boomers playing the percentages without care for either their less advantaged peers or future generations..."

It's obvious to everyone you don't consider "greedy boomers" and the "less advantaged" to be one and the same. Nothing I posted suggests you believe they are the same.

I made it quite clear that you were in fact trying to pit them against each other, as if the very fact of "greedy" boomers receiving their legal pension entitlement was somehow responsible for others being less advantaged.

It's hard to imagine a more ignorant point of view.

 

Unfortunately, you have my position bassackwards but don't let that interfere with your sense of entitlement. Typically, ragers cannot comprehend reason. Try reading posts I've made in regard to expanding the CPP and Flaherty's gaming a private pension plan. You may have to remove your head from its accustomed rest but an informed opinion requires due diligence and, in your case, sacrifice.

A simple request for clarification can make an end run on emotional diatrabe but I sense you prefer venting your spleen. Reason dictates that any sensible individual must lay claim to ignorance on many subjects. Ignorance is preferable to a nasty disposition.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Your post is once again devoid of any substantive content and consists entirely of ad hominem slurs.

You have not backed away at all from your characterization (at #27 above) of boomers who elect to take reduced early CPP benefits without giving up employment income as "greedy." If you were capable of a moment's reflection you would realize that greedy people don't voluntarily elect to take reduced pension benefits - especially if they are able to continue working and earn enough income to live comfortably until they reach 65 or later, when they can then enjoy a full - or even an enhanced - level of pension benefits.

You might also be able to comprehend that "individuals who have no choice but to take CPP benefits before age 65" might have a great deal of difficulty getting by on a reduced pension, and might "have no choice but" to also take a job in order to survive – not becaue they are "greedy".

Roscoe

I don't respond well to bullying but since you have restrained your baser instincts, I'll restrain my inclination to utilise my keenly honed ignorance by ignoring you.

There are many individuals entering retirement who do not need either OA or CPP to live a comfortable lifestyle but they are entitled to these benefits due to 'universality' and greedily scheme to maximise entitlement to public pension funds that are simply pocket money.

I believe the clawback provisions should be enhanced to provide funds that can be used to increase the Supplement and raise income levels for those who are truly in need, not provide a universal greens fee and beer fund for the well to do.

Sure, the usual suspects will piss and moan about pensions they have paid into and feel entitled to but these greedy souls will do the same thing over a nickel simply because they can.

 

George Victor

Let's just consider how we can replace wee Jimmy and friends and then just go and raise the goddam GIS and begin the long road to better CPP for folks forty years down the pike (which won't include one of us...

George Victor

Too much goddam concern for syntax, in the meantime.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Great, now he wants to get rid of universality and institute a means test before you can collect the pension for which you have paid premiums for four decades or more!

This twit wants us to believe that electing to receive an early Canada Pension at a reduced rate for the rest of your life is "greedy".

"Keenly honed ignorance", indeed! What's this jerk doing on a progressive forum board? 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Anytime financial and investment institutions are on board, you know you have to worry. What pisses me off is that the CPP discussion is being framed by Flaherty and his supporters as a government hand-out when in fact it is a societal good that everyone working contributes to. It reminds me of the discourse and subsequent changes when UI became EI and access was seriously curtailed. At that time, the public was being fed a similar meme of government handouts when again, it is a universal insurance system that all workers pay into. One idiot speaking on the proposed changes on CBC Radio's <i>The House</i> had the audacity to use the tired right wing talking point of "taking individual responsibility".

Roscoe

M. Spector wrote:

Great, now he wants to get rid of universality and institute a means test before you can collect the pension for which you have paid premiums for four decades or more!

This twit wants us to believe that electing to receive an early Canada Pension at a reduced rate for the rest of your life is "greedy".

"Keenly honed ignorance", indeed! What's this jerk doing on a progressive forum board? 

Yawn!   Speaking of jerks on progressive forum boards, you need someone to kick around in order to give meaning to your pathetic life.

You twist my words to suit your agenda. I am advocating that wealthy individuals forego their pensions so that individuals who need to take early retirement can have more.

That is progressive. Whatever the mechanism used to achieve that result.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I disagree, Roscoe. Universal programs should continue to be universal regardless of means. Income discrepancies should be handled through a progressive taxation system, where the wealthiest contribute substantially more to support services that help those who need more assistance.

Roscoe

Yes. Whatever mechanism that works. Universality is hardy universal when it adds to income discrepancy rather than reduces it. There is something the matter when universality dictates pensions for those who don't need them and reduced circumstances for those who do. 

Wealthy boomer articles that highlight DINKs who retire at 55 on two defined benefits pensions and then complain about reduced CPP at 60 make me gag.

Part of the problem with this income discrepancy is that those who craft the policies and regulations governing these entitlements are themselves at the higher end of the income scale and are looking out for themselves first rather than crafting an equitable retirement regime.

George Victor

Yes, it sucks Roscoe, but universality demands they get their allotment.   If we can get just a fraction of tth marginalized off their ass at election time, we can tax it back.   Work on that.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Roscoe wants to scrap the Canada Pension Plan and replace it with a system of Welfare for Old People. Instead of people being entitled to receive defined benefits from the fund according to certain rules defined in advance and based on the amounts each individual has contributed, he would like to see a system where you have to beg the Harper government for benefits and prove you're not just "greedy".

• Living with a working spouse under age 60? Sorry, you get a reduced benefit.
• Got an adult child living in your home and helping to pay the rent or mortgage? Sorry, reduced benefit.
• Working at a part-time job for $10.25 an hour? Sorry, you're too greedy. No pension for you unless you quit your job.
• Do you own rather than rent? Sorry, reduced pension.
• Got an RRSP? Sorry, reduced pension.
• Are you entitled to a private pension at 65? Sorry, you're greedy. No CPP for you.

 

Fidel

Means tests? Is that like when the authorities come round and count your ribs as a measure of need in 1930s depression era Canada? What a miserable system that would be all over again. No more laissez-faire, thanks, we've had enough of that before.

Pages