There is a story on Canadian Pension Reform.
This week's federal budget forecasts 5-per-cent annual increases in elderly benefits due to an aging population at a time when the government is trying to rein in spending.
The debate is fraught with peril for federal and provincial governments, because proposed solutions could pit young against old or rich against poor.
My opinion, the massive continued transference of wealth from youth to age should pit youth against old. By retirement you have had your whole life to accumulate some wealth to help you with your retirement. Right now with the same income the young person would take home way less because of the unjustified tax breaks seniors already get. The young person has to pay for all kinds of work related expenses, like getting there, canada pension plan, employment insurance and has to figure out how to save for retirement, raise a family. The list of increased costs for a young person is immense, and all that without any kind of wealth to help them out.
Add to that the declining wages and disposible income that the younger person faces.
Pension policy experts say the coming weeks are a rare window of opportunity for historic improvements while the hard lessons of the recession are still fresh.
How do you defined historic improvements? A historical improvement would be to bring back some balance to be fair to young people again. Every single program that supported or was a break for young people disappeared right in front of me just as I was qualifying for it. Yet at the other end programs for seniors were increased, free prescriptions, breaks on property tax, being able to retire earlier. Sorry, but what I have seen is way too many cuts to youth programs and way too many increases to senior programs, and the programs are already unsustainable. And the gross unfairness has helped to hurt the birth rate.
“The financial crisis has taught us a very, very important lesson that's related to pensions and that lesson is that an RRSP, as large as it is, is not a pension, because from one year to the next, it can lose a quarter of its value,” he said.
So, pension plans invested in the same market are somehow supposed still be able to cover obligations when they lose 1/4 of their value? Lets just bankrupt the company and then really cry when there is no pension instead of a more reasonable sustainable one.
The Liberals are in favour of letting people have the CPP manage their retirement savings if they want to, and the NDP is siding with unions calling for a doubling of benefits under the existing system.
Amazing, they must have missed the 5% increase in the budget for seniors, or the $56 billion deficit this past year. What a negligent suggestion.
Liberal finance critic John McCallum said pension reform should be the finance committee's priority, but expressed skepticism that the government will take action three months from now when the consultations are complete.
“It's been on the table for months if not years, and what are they doing? Holding more consultations,” he said. “I think there's fairly broad consensus for a supplementary Canada Pension Plan – which we have proposed – but I don't sense this government wants to go there at all.”
I need to find out who is running against this dork and do everything I can to help them get elected and this guy away from where he can do so much harm.