# Auditor General is saying that the Public Sector Pensions have a shortfall.



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Heard on CTV news that auditor general is say that the public pension plans may be at risk...



> In his spring report to Parliament, Michael Ferguson also warned that prolonged rock-bottom interest rates and lower-than-expected returns on assets could cost taxpayers billions down the road.
> 
> Some signs of the financial strain have already begun to surface, the audit revealed.
> The findings said that the plans experienced funding deficits totalling $6.5 billion over the last three years.
> To help close the gap, special payments amounting to $741 million in 2013, and around $1 billion over the last two years, were necessary.



Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/publ...-says-auditor-general-1.1808331#ixzz30yl3poLP


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't see anything wrong with the report.......but apparently the Harper Government does.

Clements wants to have it both ways....the auditor is wrong and the plans are well governed....but they are in terrible shape and need to be replaced by a new "shared pension plan".

If they are in terrible shape........how can they be well governed?

How would a new plan be any better governed?

So maybe the benefit formula has to be changed, or cost of living dropped, or early retirement phased out........just fix the problem already.

Don't create a new problem to solve an old problem.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

*there's also a 152 Billion libaility in the Public Service Pension Plan....woah!*

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/...uld+examine+design+pension/9811273/story.html

that "to die for" pension in the federal public service looks like it has a few issues....


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Sorry but the oddity general was not referring to the CPP - he was referring to public employee pensions. The greater attention he suggests is exactly what the government is proposing by way of changes intended to ensure future flexibility so that we (the taxpayers) don't get into a massive unfunded liability position in the future. In the hands of any other governing party we would & should be very concerned.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Can we change the title of the thread, because the report DID NOT refer to CPP funding.


----------



## Green (Mar 25, 2014)

They are talking about the defined benefit government employees pension.
The employer are the taxpayers, and the taxpayers will have to pay up any shortfall.
More of those taxpayers have now defined contribution pensions, or nothing at all.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The AG finally seems to have woken up and smelled the roses.
Many folks have been saying this for a long time now.
The C.D. Howe Institute was saying this back in 2012.

Malcolm Hamilton did a study earlier this year including all the unfunded liabilities of the public sector pension plans and his estimate was $270B, not the $120B, which was being reported then.
Now the official estimate has been raised to $152B, which is still way short.

The public sector pension plans is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

Of course, Tony Clement doesn't want to crack down on it at this moment - there is an election coming up in just over a year, and the public sector unions can easily swing the vote, as they have been doing in Ontario for years.

The media called the banks and financial institutions _financial terrorists_, and _banksters_, but the public sector unions are right up there as well.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Lol


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

CPP is VERY well funded.


----------



## daddybigbucks (Jan 30, 2011)

We have to RAISE interest rates!

Anyone know how to petition to get some action?
or where one would even start?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Seems that the thread title is wrong.



> We have to RAISE interest rates!


lol, there's no way the central bank will raise rates. Not unless you want to burst the Canadian housing bubble and force cascading liquidations and debt repayments (sinking the banks). The economy is at zero real growth and this is how it will continue for the foreseeable future... stagnation and zero interest policy (ZIRP). Forever. Just like Japan.

Of course, the bond market will eventually raise rates for us but who knows how long that can be.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Don't worry, it will be bailed out with the other tax payer's money..


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Can we change the title of the thread, because the report DID NOT refer to CPP funding.


How do you do that? Tried to, and it doesn't seem to want to change.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Seems that the thread title is wrong.


Yes it is..sorry about "crying wolf..or..maybe .... "the retirement sky is falling":biggrin:


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

daddybigbucks said:


> We have to RAISE interest rates!





james4beach said:


> lol, there's no way the central bank will raise rates.


This is not simply an interest rate problem.
Pension plans these days are widely diversified in global equities, real estate, commodities, and some even have prop. trading desks of their own.
Most Canadian pension plans are able to generate 7% - 8% annualized easily.
The CPP is able to do 9%+.

Sure, we can probably temporarily patch this problem by raising bond yields to double, but that will essentially create a domino effect of various provincial and local governments not being able to meet their obligations.
Ontario's debt ratio is nearly 40% of GDP at current rates...doubling the rates will bring it down on its knees.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> The economy is at zero real growth and this is how it will continue for the foreseeable future... stagnation and zero interest policy (ZIRP). Forever. Just like Japan.


Canadian real GDP growth has been over 1% for several years. Just because the economy is not growing as fast as it did in the great moderation does not mean we are not experiencing growth.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Future pension obligations are highly sensitive to changes in the interest rate. As the long-term rate rises, the present value of a future obligation goes down (bond economics 101). I'm not entirely sure that's what's being discussed here, but present-day pension shortfalls are attributable in significant measure to persistent low interest rates. If rates rose, the size of the obligations decreases and shortfalls can "magically" "disappear."


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

You mean like:



> Strong equity returns and rising long-term interest rates in the final quarter of 2013 capped a dramatic year of improvement in the funding status of Canadian pension plans.
> 
> A pension “health” index maintained by Mercer, a human resources consultant, reached its highest level in 12 years at the end of December. AON Hewitt, another global human resources consultancy specializing in pensions, also reported a notable uptick in pension plan health last year....
> 
> ...


http://business.financialpost.com/2...-start-2014-at-healthiest-in-12-years-mercer/


Cheers


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Yes, indeed.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Public sector pension plans have had surpluses in the past.
Those surpluses were often used to increase pension benefits, egged on by the unions and agreed to by the then governments in power.
As recently as 2013, the RCMP pension increased its benefits to disburse the surplus.

Now that discount rates are lower (and projected to stay low), the pension plans are crying foul and want to saddle the taxpayer with the deficits.
To apply the same principle, benefits should be cut now to eliminate the deficit.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

the taxpayers are mainly in the private sector
and they are trying to eek out a safe 4-5% on their money
and then pay public sector employees defined benefits which are pegged at 10% return on investments ?
really ?

cupe and the rest of them need to wake the @@@@ up ...


----------



## warp (Sep 4, 2010)

If some politician does not some have the courage to takcle this problem soon, the Public Sector Union pensions will BANKRUPT this country.

Even now, as of today, these pensions have a HUGE underfunded liability into the trillions of dollars, and it gets worse every day.

Public sector union workers are all overpaid, underworked, have way too may benefits, and enjoy pensions that regular working taxpayers can only dream of. The whole thing is a disgrace, considering that taxpayers have to foot the bill for these people.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

warp said:


> If some politician does not some have the courage to takcle this problem soon, the Public Sector Union pensions will BANKRUPT this country.
> 
> Even now, as of today, these pensions have a HUGE underfunded liability into the trillions of dollars, and it gets worse every day.
> 
> Public sector union workers are all overpaid, underworked, have way too may benefits, and enjoy pensions that regular working taxpayers can only dream of. The whole thing is a disgrace, considering that taxpayers have to foot the bill for these people.


You have put it much better than I ever did !


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Trillions of dollars?

Really?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Truthiness


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

fraser said:


> Trillions of dollars?
> Really?


It is not trillions in the case of Canada.
But it is in couple of hundred billions.

It is in trillions in the US, though.
Not their gross debt, but the underfunded liabilities, incl. social security and medicare.

The root causes are the same, it is a difference of scale.


----------



## Rysto (Nov 22, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Public sector pension plans have had surpluses in the past.
> Those surpluses were often used to increase pension benefits, egged on by the unions and agreed to by the then governments in power.
> As recently as 2013, the RCMP pension increased its benefits to disburse the surplus.
> 
> ...


Before cutting benefits, how about the government put back the surpluses that they've removed from pension plans and added to general revenues?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Rysto said:


> Before cutting benefits, how about the government put back the surpluses that they've removed from pension plans and added to general revenues?


And what about those surpluses that were squandered away as increases in pension benefits?
Every time there was even the slightest of surplus, union voted to distribute it as increased benefits.

There were numerous such cases all through the mid 1990s, when the stock markets were booming.
Even as late as 2011 or 2012, the RCMP pension plan was distributing surpluses in the form of increased pension benefits.
Incidentally, that is one of the plans highlighted by the AG in this report.

Surplus = have a party
Deficit = let the tax payer foot the bill


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> If rates rose, the size of the obligations decreases and shortfalls can "magically" "disappear."


The same effect can be achieved by reducing the longevity assumptions.
If assuming bond yields from the 1980s will generate surpluses in pension plans, fine, let us also use mortality tables from the 1980s.

This is not just rhetorical - the longevity assumptions being made by many pension plans in the 1970s and 1980s turned out to be completely wrong.
In the US, scores upon scores of state defined benefit pension plans are in deep, irrecoverable deficits because of bad mortality assumptions.

One of the cities that went bankrupt (I forget whether it was the California city, or the Alabama one) were using some whacky tables from 2 decades ago.
This was uncovered as recently as in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
Turns out, both the union leadership as well as the politicians were aware of these kinds of "gotchas" in the plan, even though they truly didn't understand the full implication of those assumptions.

When informed that longevity was early 80s for males and mid 80s for females, the union boss is reported to have said:
_I am always attending some funeral or the other. I don't think anyone lives that long_.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

The California city had a problem. It was either Stockton or San Bernadino. It was hard to attract people to the police dept. So among other things, they changed the pension to include a 3 percent raise EVERY year, regardless of inflation. And they included overtime in pensionable earnings.

So as of today, there are retired officers who are actually getting MORE on pension than they would if they worked full time.

Don't blame the officers, blame the civic administration.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Oh that's right...I think it was Vallejo, California, not Stockton.
I recall reading that the police chief (or was it the fire chief) retired with a pension of $195K whereas his last drawn salary was $65K or something.
He was able to do this because he kept "retiring" from one branch of police and joined another one.
Did this for some 30 odd years, and he ended up with full pensions from both the forces.

It is not just the civic administration - equal blame ought to lie with the unions.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I'm with Harold, equal blame with unions.....

Unions made sense a few generations ago when people worked without any breaks and woman weren't allowed in the workforce. In 2014, they have no place. Not in the first world anyhow. Just me.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

My Own Advisor said:


> I'm with Harold, equal blame with unions.....
> 
> Unions made sense a few generations ago when people worked without any breaks and woman weren't allowed in the workforce. In 2014, they have no place. Not in the first world anyhow. Just me.


Getting off topic ... Not everyone in Canada is living in the first world. My own observation ... management in general perceives employees as a necessary evil ... employees need _some mechanism_ ... currently a union, association ... to level the playing field between themselves as individuals, and management a collective. Not going into detail, an employee was wrongly accused by a manager, without the unions analysis of the situation, and decision to support the employee, the employee would have had to either walk away, or hire a lawyer. Just saying, if management has all the power, the non-management employees will be abused.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

...everyone? Really? How do you think those of us who work in non-unionized environments function? There is *no* other mechanism for working issues out other than unions?


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

MoneyGal said:


> ...everyone? Really? How do you think those of us who work in non-unionized environments function? There is *no* other mechanism for working issues out other than unions?


 I suggested there needs to be _some mechanism_ ... suggestions anyone? I know how my non-union engineer buddies work ... very well constructed contracts.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I have worked in my entire life in non-unionized environments with the exception of 5 years of federal civil service at the very outset of my career. I've worked in small, family-owned businesses, startups, and large corporations. The existing mechanisms - of which there are many, ranging from basic interpersonal skills to HR committees to company picnics to contract negotiations - have served me well enough. Really. There are many, many ways to get things done and reach agreements - amicably, even. Lawyers work well too, when needed.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

Agreed ... but then, we I think, and my engineering buddies are living in the first world ... I suggest that not everyone in Canada is living in the first world ... when things go off the rails, those employees have little recourse ... HR committees, company picnics, contract negotiations ... nope. Apologies, gotta go, off to the QC to negotiate getting of this anti-biotic IV ...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> And what about those surpluses that were squandered away as increases in pension benefits?
> Every time there was even the slightest of surplus, union voted to distribute it as increased benefits.
> 
> There were numerous such cases all through the mid 1990s, when the stock markets were booming.
> ...


That seems to be the way with the gov't and the civil service pensions. When there was a surplus during the good times., they took money out of the civil service pension plan to service
debts. 



> Canada Post has a $6.5 billion hole in its pension plan. That means they owe money to pensioners or current employees that they just don't have and that is a big driver of these cuts.
> 
> Anyone upset about losing postal service to their door should be upset at the cost of the pension plans on offer to postal workers, the inability of past negotiators to say no and the bad planning that saw this huge, unfunded liability grow.
> 
> ...


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

carverman said:


> When there was a surplus during the good times., they took money out of the civil service pension plan to service debts.


I am saying that surpluses have been used many times to increase pension benefits for the retirees, not appropriated by the govt.
It benefitted the retirees at that time, and the union leadership.

The future workers and tax-payers are the ones getting hosed now that there are deficits.

If those surpluses had been left in the plan, the impact of 2008/9 could have been cushioned.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't think a government can ban unions, anymore than they could ban membership to any association, club, fraternity or organization.

The right to assembly is the definition of a democratic country.

Membership in political parties is no more a right.........than the right to membership in a union.

The belief that all companies act responsibly in all matters......is a naive assumption, that contradicts the facts.

Not only do non union workers take the many benefits, fought for by unions past and present, for granted, but the belief that constant vigilance is no longer required is a naive one.

In the sole area of worker health and safety, unions play a key role by conducting workplace safety inspections, ensuring that proper protective equipment is available and being utilized, and that worker safety concerns are represented on employer Health and Safety Committees.

The statistics show that unionized workplace have higher safety standards and better safety records than non union workplaces. An overwhelming majority of fatal accidents in some job sectors, occur in non union employers.

This is especially true in the resource and construction industries, such as among miners, iron workers, roofers, and agricultural businesses.

Would you rather have your child go to their first summer job at a construction site....at a union or non union job site?

I know what my preference would be..............and not simply for higher wages.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> I am saying that surpluses have been used many times to increase pension benefits for the retirees, not appropriated by the govt.
> It benefitted the retirees at that time, and the union leadership.
> 
> The future workers and tax-payers are the ones getting hosed now that there are deficits.
> ...


From what I recall, the usual pattern for surpluses in the pension plan, was to agree to divide up the surplus between increasing pension benefits to the members, and declaring pension contribution holidays for the employers.

It was a practice of benefit to both......so both sides would agree.

I do agree with you, that "neither" of those should have been allowed, and the surplus should be retained for future needs.

Both sides were guilty of "dividing up the pie".

As pension finances improve...........they will probably want to do it again.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I really don't know why anyone expects the public service pensions to change much.

The politicians making the decisions..........determine their own public service pensions and the rules.

As sharply pointed out by Kathleen Wynne, in reply to Harper and Clements foray into the Ontario Pension debate, they will enjoy lavish public service pensions themselves...........with Harper's pension being 6 times larger than the average pension. Clements can look forward to a similar lifetime reward at the end of his political career.

Wynne's tongue lashing caused some embarrassment among the politicos. 

I think they underestimated Wynne's intellectual capability, and her willingness to use it.

Convince the politicians to give up their own pensions first..........and then discuss the rest of the public service.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> And what about those surpluses that were squandered away as increases in pension benefits?
> Every time there was even the slightest of surplus, union voted to distribute it as increased benefits.
> 
> ... There were numerous such cases all through the mid 1990s, when the stock markets were booming.
> Even as late as 2011 or 2012, the RCMP pension plan was distributing surpluses in the form of increased pension benefits...


I recall a slide from one of the pension presentations indicating that the pension legislation dictates limited options when a surplus reaches a certain point. The examples in the slide were to increase benefits, have a contribution holiday or withdraw the cash back to the employer (assuming the surplus wasn't from employee contributions).

So what you are describing "squandered away" may be simply following the law.


Bottom line is that there are many factors.



Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> Convince the politicians to give up their own pensions first..........and then discuss the rest of the public service.


No disagreement there.
Truly responsible politicians do that.
Remember the New Brunswick MPP pensions were reduced significantly when they re-structured the entire public sector pension system in 2012?
The MPPs voted to reduce their pensions - it is almost an unheard of event.

The federal MP pensions in Canada is just about the most generous in the world, or at least easily in the top 3.
We don't begrudge long-serving leaders like the Late Jim Flaherty or Bob Rae a generous pension, but full pensions after 5 years of "service" is ridiculous.

The MCG administration was notorious for giving itself large pay raises.
Remember that ~ 27% increase in 2006/7


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> So what you are describing "squandered away" may be simply following the law.


Pension laws can be, and are, changed when the need is dire enough.
Scores of states, municipalities, and cities in the US are in the process of significantly re-writing their pension laws.

Many facets of pension law must have been written to benefit the in situ administration and union leadership.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

McGuinty was a poor leader..........no doubt about that.

Wynne..........I don't know if she would be as bad. 

She appears to be quicker to "do battle" than McGuinty was.

She might just surprise some people if push comes to shove............in negotiating with unions.

One thing unions respect.............is hard bargaining.

If the opposition is soft............they will make hay while the sun shines.

If it is tough............they will dig around for whatever they can chip away.

As an example...auto negotiations for the past few contracts. 

The mighty CAW (Unifor) was reduced to trying to hang on to whatever they could.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Oh that's right...I think it was Vallejo, California, not Stockton.


Stockton had it's own problems with police chief ... four were in the job three years or less and three of the four collect 92% of their salary in "retirement".
The one that lasted eight months collects over $204K.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...204-000-pension-shows-how-cities-crashed.html




HaroldCrump said:


> I recall reading that the police chief (or was it the fire chief) retired with a pension of $195K whereas his last drawn salary was $65K or something. He was able to do this because he kept "retiring" from one branch of police and joined another one.


It seems this is common as San Bernadino's retired police chief is collecting a six figure pension but is also acting chief in Seal Beach, CA.




HaroldCrump said:


> It is not just the civic administration - equal blame ought to lie with the unions.


Voters are also to blame ... so there is lots to go round.


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

How many Canadian politicians are collecting pensions from former occupations, while earning a pension as an MP ?

Former police chiefs.........teachers.........?

The political parties actively recruit candidates who are "high profile" in their local communities, and someone like a police chief is much sought after.

The voters could say......."sorry, you have one public pension and we aren't giving you another" but they don't.

That's one reason I think public service pensions is a bigger concern for some groups......than it is for the voters.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Pension laws can be, and are, changed when the need is dire enough.


I don't recall anyone arguing there needed to be a change at the time so I'm not sure what the relevance.
What what has happened, there is definitely a need to change the law.




HaroldCrump said:


> Scores of states, municipalities, and cities in the US are in the process of significantly re-writing their pension laws.


Again ... since there was no apparent need for a re-write in the 1990's, I'm not sure what the relevance is. 

Then too, I'm not sure how many plans are going to benefit anytime soon from providing more ways of keeping surpluses in the plan instead of forcing a distribution through limited options.




HaroldCrump said:


> Many facets of pension law must have been written to benefit the in situ administration and union leadership.


If I recall the comments/discussion about the slide correctly - these provisions were to avoid the US example where companies were withdrawing surplus money to improve their bottom line, without any benefit to the employee. There were no distributions to the employee or upgrades in benefits for these actions ... despite the US employee's contributions being a significant source of the surplus.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> I really don't know why anyone expects the public service pensions to change much.
> 
> The politicians making the decisions..........determine their own public service pensions and the rules ...
> 
> Convince the politicians to give up their own pensions first..........and then discuss the rest of the public service.


The adjustments should be done in parallel ... as a tax payer, I can't afford the excesses of either pension.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> ... We don't begrudge long-serving leaders like the Late Jim Flaherty or Bob Rae a generous pension, but full pensions after 5 years of "service" is ridiculous...


Actually I do begrudge them all, where it is excessive ... especially when they talk about the need to make other adjustments to cut costs.


Cheers

*PS*

How many have significant pensions from private companies but then the taxpayer has to chip in more?

How many working in private industry for a decade are collecting between salary, benefits and pension worth $3 million?
http://www.moneysense.ca/spend/inside-stephen-harpers-wallet

If the tax payer can't afford overly generous pay/pensions for their employees, why would we accept the same for management?

Don't forget that this largesse for some aspects is recent.


> Just nine years ago the base pay for an MP was $68,200, pretty much in line with what a high school teacher or police officer might earn. Since then MPs’ salaries have more than doubled.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Parallel would be a fine option.

The politicians won't agree though. 

They will trot out the old......"we need pensions to attract the best talent" line of BS.


----------



## blueeyetea (Feb 27, 2013)

carverman said:


> Canada Post has a $6.5 billion hole in its pension plan. That means they owe money to pensioners or current employees that they just don't have and that is a big driver of these cuts.


This is inacurrate because it describes the solvency status of the plan, and not the going concern status. The solvency status means that there would be a shortfall of $6.5 billion if the plan was wound-up today and annuities were purchased at today's rate for members of the plan. The minute market returns improve that solvency shortfall will be wiped and replaced by a surplus. 

On a going concern basis, the plan is at its funded target ratio of 100%. This means that the Plan is estimated to have enough assets to pay future pension benefits.


----------



## warp (Sep 4, 2010)

fraser said:


> Trillions of dollars?
> 
> Really?


In a well researched book that I recently read, that was written last year , I believe, this unfunded liability in Canada was pegged at 1.3 TRILLION dollars....( and its rising faster every year).

So the answer is YES, really!


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

warp said:


> In a well researched book that I recently read, that was written last year , I believe, this unfunded liability in Canada was pegged at 1.3 TRILLION dollars....( and its rising faster every year).
> So the answer is YES, really!


Which book is that warp?
I was thinking of the 2013 C.D. Howe report that put the unfunded liability at about $250B, which is terrible and scary enough as it is.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

blueeyetea said:


> ...The minute market returns improve that solvency shortfall will be wiped and replaced by a surplus.


I seem to recall news that we just went through that period of improved returns - and that many pension plans have improved immensely as a result. Don't know the status of posties plan, but if it didn't catch enough wind to sail this past year, then it seems likely that its got big problems ahead.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There have been some "studies" that assigned huge pension shortfalls to the plans.........but there have also been articles that questioned the veracity of the methods used in the calculations.

It seems that many "studies" these days, are completed to support an already existing hypothesis.

It happens on both sides of the political spectrum.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to know who to believe anymore.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

I don't think that the federal government keeps a separate DB pension account in trust like most other DB plans.

You are quite correct in saying the DB plans have made a significant recovery. I seem to recall a recent Aon Hewitt report that said over 94 percent of DB plans are now at their correct level and something like 8 - 10 percent are funded at over the 100 percent level.

Huge change from a few years ago.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

fraser said:


> I don't think that the federal government keeps a separate DB pension account in trust like most other DB plans.


If this is true ... then the federal gov't is using a strange structure. 
I can't quite figure out how it works with a separate crown corp to manage the pension assets but somehow the assets themselves are still mixed in with other gov't accounts.



> The Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP Investments) is one of Canada’s largest pension investment managers, with $76.1 billion of assets under management at March 31, 2013. We invest funds for the pension plans (Plans) of the Public Service, the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Reserve Force.


http://www.investpsp.ca/en/about-profile.html




fraser said:


> You are quite correct in saying the DB plans have made a significant recovery. I seem to recall a recent Aon Hewitt report that said over 94 percent of DB plans are now at their correct level and something like 8 - 10 percent are funded at over the 100 percent level.
> 
> Huge change from a few years ago.


The results are strong but the amount of change varies by what is being tracked.

Mercer reported that for the DB plans they track, at the start of 2013 6% were fully funded where by year end it was almost 40%.
AON Hewitt reported a 25% increase in the median solvency funded ratio in the AON Hewitt pension universe to 93.4%.

http://business.financialpost.com/2...-start-2014-at-healthiest-in-12-years-mercer/

Then too, the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan reported it's first surplus in ten years with 103% funding.
The comparable AON Hewitt numbers for what Mercer reported is 3% fully funded to 36% fully or more than fully funded. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/mor...o-surplus-as-market-returns-improve-1.2594344 


The Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan appears to have avoided a funding shortfall completely are they started discussing reducing dependency on equities in 2006 and stands at 114% funded.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...risky-business-healthy-payoff/article4414197/


Cheers


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't really care how pensions are structured, as long as the employer cash liability is only in the year the pension benefit is accrued. Any shortfalls are made up through benefit reductions or increased employee contributions.


----------



## praire_guy (Sep 8, 2011)

warp said:


> If some politician does not some have the courage to takcle this problem soon, the Public Sector Union pensions will BANKRUPT this country.
> 
> Even now, as of today, these pensions have a HUGE underfunded liability into the trillions of dollars, and it gets worse every day.
> 
> Public sector union workers are all overpaid, underworked, have way too may benefits, and enjoy pensions that regular working taxpayers can only dream of. The whole thing is a disgrace, considering that taxpayers have to foot the bill for these people.



Wow, that's a pretty arrogant statement. Some of us in these forums belong to unions. I don't think I'm underworked and overpaid. Do I enjoy nice benefits? Yes I do. I have a DB pension which by the way will be reduced by my cpp payment or OAS. Can't remember. I pay into and I will never collect. 

Maybe next time before you shoot your mouth off think for a moment before you post. 

It is what it is. And I'm sick of hearing about how evil unions are. Why do we have unions in the first place? It's because greedy companies had kids working in coal mines, and everyone else had bad working conditions. 

I'm happy with my life choices and my career choices. It sounds like you are not happy. 

Change it up then. 

Congratulations you are now on my ignore list.


----------



## CPA Candidate (Dec 15, 2013)

Warp is right, the public sector pensions are completely unsustainable. No politican has the guts to deal with the problem and risk support.

Defined benefit plans need to go the way of the dodo. Why should the taxpayer take on the risk that investments don't earn enough over time to fulfill the guarantees? It's completely unfair to have the burden placed on them. It's different when a defined benefit plan is run by a company, the burden only falls on shareholders.

In my opinion the defined benefit plan should be abolished everywhere. Take responsilibity for your own retirement, the risk should lie with no one other than yourself.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Many of the problems with defined benefit plans can be fixed by a combination of increasing employee contributions and/or raising retirement age and/or reducing the accrual rate.
Unfortunately, in the case of public sector defined benefit plans, none of those measures are enforceable due to the unionization, collective bargaining practice, political vote banking, and other non financial reasons.

It is completely atrocious that in this day and age, our public sector allows its employees to pay less than half the contributions into the plans, retire in their early 50s, collect full (70%), indexed pensions for 40 years, and have survivorship benefits.

IMHO, the problem is not the defined benefit model per se, but the impediments to its fair and proper implementation.


----------



## blueeyetea (Feb 27, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> It is completely atrocious that in this day and age, our public sector allows its employees to pay less than half the contributions into the plans, retire in their early 50s, collect full (70%), indexed pensions for 40 years, and have survivorship benefits.


The latest collective agreements have changed the contributions closer to 50% employee-50% employer.


----------



## blueeyetea (Feb 27, 2013)

CPA Candidate said:


> Defined benefit plans need to go the way of the dodo. Why should the taxpayer take on the risk that investments don't earn enough over time to fulfill the guarantees? It's completely unfair to have the burden placed on them.


As explained above by another poster, the current solvency problems with the pension plans are because of the current market returns. When the plans were in a surplus position, the Government gave itself contribution holidays and served itself to a surplus in the pension fund to bring down the deficit. In other words, the Government felt itself entitled to that surplus. Now that there's a deficit in the plan there's a complete flipflop and can no longer afford it? 

Sorry, but they own it both ways. If they had left the surplus where it belonged and continued with contributions when they were flush with money, they might not be stuck in a position of making special payments to cover their obligations.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

CPA Candidate said:


> ... It's different when a defined benefit plan is run by a company, the burden only falls on shareholders.


It's a good thing the company can't increase prices and pass the cost off to the consumer .... 




CPA Candidate said:


> ...In my opinion the defined benefit plan should be abolished everywhere.
> Take responsilibity for your own retirement, the risk should lie with no one other than yourself.


I'm not sure that abolishing DB pension is going to help the tax payer out as much as you think.

Back in the early 1990's, the company I joined merged with another company. I was invited to pension session aimed at convincing grandfathered employees in the DB pension to convert to the DC pension. 

The first thing I noticed was that switching meant going from over a bit over a 5% employee/employer contribution to a 1% for each contribution rate.
The second thing that took more digging was that where *all* employees were in the DB pension, the new DC plan was available to managers and up only.

Now according to a recent article, for those in private industry are one in five having access to a *pension* plan.


Do you really want to bet that four out of five have the cash flow, the knowledge and the will to save enough for their retirement so that the OAS numbers don't grow significantly?


Keep in mind that merged company started laying off people in 2001 or so because their profits were only growing by 28% where they had been used to 40% growth. Then too, after a buyout - the buying company had the bean counters say they needed to cut a few positions so they called people in from paying contracts in order to fire them.


Cheers

*PS*

On one side of the coin, in the private world the pension member plus the non-member can be sure of avoiding funding a pension shortfall by avoiding using the private company product/service. If they do interact with the company, then in all likelihood there will be some or all of the pension shortfall mixed into the product costs.

The flip side for the public sector pension, where the gov't increases taxes to make up the shortfall, all tax payers are kicking in, pension member or non-member.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

blueeyetea said:


> As explained above by another poster, the current solvency problems with the pension plans are because of the current market returns.


Actually ... several articles have indicated that current market returns and interest rates are responsible for a 40% increase in the number of fully funded DB pension plans. It is currently at a twelve year high for the number that are fully funded or better.

The other article that has me fascinated was quoting pension experts are saying that the majority of the companies that converted from a DB pension to a DC pension in the 1990's are still waiting for the savings to start. 


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Current shortfalls wouldn't be solved by eliminating the DB pension plans.

Those "savings" are a myth perpetrated by those who are ideologically opposed to the concept of DB pension plans.

Whatever benefits have already been accrued by pension plan members are protected by law. 

Only the government declaring bankruptcy would change the fact those benefits must be paid out.


----------



## Westerly (Dec 26, 2010)

Or a breach of contract and trust which the big Cs have already committed. AFAIC as a public employee, pay my full remuneration and I'll look after myself or pay the pension funds into trust - out of reach of the grease. I'm contemplating going private just to get my accrued remuneration out of what I perceive to be a ponsi scheme.

I like Andrews idea, make the pension fully funded by year,I'll even pay my difference, but don't expect that I'll accept a lower overall compensation! I'll happily go elsewhere for better money if no pension.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

DB pensions in Canada are very well funded today. Some Government plans are grossly underfunded simply because the Governement does not apply the same standard to themselves as they do to the private sector when it comes to funding DB plans and placing the money in trust.

Public sector DB plans cannot simply be cancelled. They are an obligation made to employees. 

What can and should be done by the Government, IMHO, is to understand the cost of the plan as a percentage of salary, determine how best to either reduce the Governments share as a percentage of salary or decrease the cost by re-visiting pension and benefit attributes. But revisiting only means changing the go forward benefits and entitlements. Any entitlement earned to date must be honoured.

Next, the Government should ensure their employees DB pension funds are paid into a trust in the same manner as private company plans, and they should determine a realistic and orderly payback plan in order to bring the funding to the correct levels.


----------



## Westerly (Dec 26, 2010)

That's a great post: however, when adjusting the gov %, be prepared to increase the salary. The gov % is part of the overall remuneration. ThAt's conveniently misplaced along with the pension funds.


----------



## Westerly (Dec 26, 2010)

Can anyone comment on where the multiplier K fits into this (macro econ theory that details how 95% of gov expenditures are returned to coffers?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

fraser said:


> ... Next, the Government should ensure their employees DB pension funds are paid into a trust in the same manner as private company plans, and they should determine a realistic and orderly payback plan in order to bring the funding to the correct levels.


The funding timing is less clear to me.

For the pension funds not being held in trust, do you have a reference?

When I checked federally, there is a crown corporation setup to manage the DB pension monies. 
This suggests that the funds passed to them are held in trust.


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

blueeyetea said:


> The latest collective agreements have changed the contributions closer to 50% employee-50% employer.


There are still scores of public sector DB plans that are well below 50% employee contributions.
Some of them are high-profile ones, like the HOOPP plan.

Also, I take disagree that somehow 50% employer (i.e. tax-payer) contribution is an entitlement and to be taken for granted.
I know it has been a part of collective bargaining agreement, but most of the terms of such agreements are grossly unfair to the tax-payers to begin with, incl. this one.

The largest employer in the country should be under no obligation or expectation to pay 50% of the cost of early retirement, in addition to implicit guarantees.



blueeyetea said:


> As explained above by another poster, the current solvency problems with the pension plans are because of the current market returns. When the plans were in a surplus position, the Government gave itself contribution holidays and served itself to a surplus in the pension fund to bring down the deficit. In other words, the Government felt itself entitled to that surplus. Now that there's a deficit in the plan there's a complete flipflop and can no longer afford it?


Both statements are patently false.

#1, market returns in recent years have been _helping_, not _hampering_ pension plan solvency.
All the major public sector pension plans have been boasting high single digit % returns, and some even low double digits.
Also, the recent uptick in yields has helped the paper solvency of the plans.

#2, pension plan surpluses were not appropriated by the govt. alone.
It was collectively agreed with the union management to distribute part of the surpluses as increased pension benefits to current retirees.
You could say that union leadership colluded with the govt. to squander the surpluses on themselves and current crop of retirees, at the expense of future retirees that are now burdened with the deficits.
It was an inter-generational transfer of wealth.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

He might be referring to the 1999 Fed Budget when $28B was removed from the pension account to pay down the federal debt. On one hand, it seems to be an accounting trick, on the other hand, if there is a crown corporation managing the funds, then there must be some assets.

http://www.carp.ca/2012/12/20/public-service-unions-not-entitled-to-pension-surplus-supreme-court/


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

I simply meant that I think that Federal civil service pension plans should be operated no differently than those of a large corporate DB plan. Appropriate funds deposited in a third party managed account, top ups when required, actuarial audit every three years (could be 'going concern audit-windup audit not required) etc. etc. You are correct, crown corps do this. I think that the Federal Gov't should do it. And every three years we, and the pension members, would have the audit report. The true deficit would be including in the Budget, just as it is in a public corporation, AND the public would get a very clear understanding of the ongoing costs, trends, and current under or overfunding position.

I do not think that a private company could ever take a large amount of cash out of an overfunded pension plan. A contribution holiday would be more likely. Governments, Federal and Provincial need to be a little more straightforward in their accounting-both from a deficit reporting perspective and from a hidden tax perspective.

The most recent numbers that I saw from AON Hewitt indicate that approx. 94 percent of DB plans are adequately funded (90 plus percent), and something like 6 percent are actually overfunded. My former employer has three plans. Two are now back in the high ninety percent funding range and one is 108 percent. And that is at 31/12/2013. There has probably been gains of about 2-3 percent since then.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> #2, pension plan surpluses were not appropriated by the govt. alone.
> It was collectively agreed with the union management to distribute part of the surpluses as increased pension benefits to current retirees.
> You could say that union leadership colluded with the govt. to squander the surpluses on themselves and current crop of retirees, at the expense of future retirees that are now burdened with the deficits.
> It was an inter-generational transfer of wealth.


You've mentioned this before. What increased pension benefits are you referring to? My understanding (as far as the federal one) is concerned, is that the payout has always been based on 2%*year work* avg 5 best years. I can't see how that would have changed due to a sudden surplus in the pension funds.


----------



## blueeyetea (Feb 27, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> The largest employer in the country should be under no obligation or expectation to pay 50% of the cost of early retirement, in addition to implicit guarantees.


They have an obligation to pay for early retirement if it's been a written promise since the day the employee was hired 30 years ago. Why wouldn't it? 

The outfit I work for has this habit of announcing unpopular changes before consulting with their lawyers to determine if it's legal to go ahead. Two years ago, the company announced they wanted to change the age of early retirement from 55 to 60 for people with a minimum of 30 years of service. Employees who were 50 years of age by December 31st would have been grandfathered. 

Can you imagine the outrage and the dissatisfaction that announcement caused at ALL levels of employees, from senior managers to clerks alike? For some, they were just 6 months shy of 50, and on a whim they’d be saddled with working an extra five years to get their pensions? This definitely falls in the category of what-not-to-do in terms of motivating employees to go above and beyond. 

They did go ahead and change the early retirement age to 60 with 30 years of service, but only for the new employees being hired. That long-term employees were left alone and that the reasons why weren’t communicated speaks volumes on what the legal standing was on the subject. 



HaroldCrump said:


> Also, I disagree that somehow 50% employer (i.e. tax-payer) contribution is an entitlement and to be taken for granted. I know it has been a part of collective bargaining agreement, but most of the terms of such agreements are grossly unfair to the tax-payers to begin with, incl. this one.


Why is it unfair to the taxpayer? Isn’t the Government, the taxpayer’s representative, an employer like any other? Why should the compensation the Government offers be different than any other comparable employer if they want to attract the same calibre of employees? A university graduate working in the Government is worth less because his salary is paid with taxes instead of revenues? Does the same reasoning apply to employees who work for companies who supply goods and services to the Government? 

I’d be happy to entertain good arguments that don’t sound like sour grapes on why it’s so unfair for people to get what they were promised and what they’ve worked for. It would also be interesting to know if any naysayers would refuse such benefits if they happened to come their way.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

blueeyetea said:


> They have an obligation to pay for early retirement if it's been a written promise since the day the employee was hired 30 years ago. Why wouldn't it?


I understand that collective agreements signed in the past cannot be reneged upon.
However, what I am saying is that there should be no obligation/expectation of such terms in future agreements.

Early retirement provisions in public sector contracts are so far out of touch with reality that it is not even funny.
Canada is perhaps one of the last remaining welfare states (along with France) that is still allowing its civil workers to retire in early 50s (regardless of number of years of service in the civil service).
One by one, all the bastions of social welfare states have clawed back early retirement provisions in civil service contracts, the most recent one being Australia.



> Can you imagine the outrage and the dissatisfaction that announcement caused at ALL levels of employees, from senior managers to clerks alike?


You mean the same outrage that some felt when the OAS eligibility age was increased to 67?
At least, that was phased in over many years.

I agree that a cold-turkey cut off is unfair for employees on the brink of (early) retirement.
It should be phased in.



> Why should the compensation the Government offers be different


But it is _different _- that is the whole point.
Tax-payer funded benefits are substantially higher than what the vast majority of tax-payers have for themselves, in their respective professions.
So, unless, you are advocating legislation to mandate the same set of benefits for everyone across-the-board, then yeah it is unfair based on the collective bargaining process.



> I’d be happy to entertain good arguments that don’t sound like sour grapes on why it’s so unfair for people to get what they were promised and what they’ve worked for.


_Worked for_ is debatable.
But anyhow, promises were made in the past, and for better or worse, none of those are being retracted.
At least, I haven't heard of any level of govt. in Canada retracting any terms of collective bargaining agreements currently in effect.

However, future agreements are a different matter altogether.
There is no requirement and expectation to have similar generous terms of future collective bargaining agreements.

Those agreements were mistakes made in the past, and we have all paid heavily for that (collectively).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is difficult to know how public service compensation compares to the public compensation.

The studies are usually tainted by bias.....from both sides, and therefore differ wildly in their findings.

The often used "Sunshine List" isn't reliable, as it includes overtime in the totals, which greatly skew the numbers in some professions......and it doesn't include ancillary benefits such as health care, pensions, vacation pay, and paid statutory holidays.

If I had one person I thought would do a fair and balanced report.........I would nominate PC Senator Hugh Segal.

Although not a PC supporter, I would have confidence in his ability to perform the task with integrity.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Lots of DB plans in the private sector have early pension benefits like '30 and out' in the auto industry or service plus age of 90 gets you out with a full pension. Not that dissimilar to many public service plans. 

I get tired of people assuming that those people working our Public Service do not work hard or that the majority are sitting around doing nothing. It is a cheap shot.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> At least, I haven't heard of any level of govt. in Canada retracting any terms of collective bargaining agreements currently in effect.


You may find this report interesting: http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/cola-cuts-in-statelocal-pensions/


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> You may find this report interesting: http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/cola-cuts-in-statelocal-pensions/


MG, this is a US-report, no?
In the US, of course, there has been wide ranging pension re-structuring since 2009.
Some states like Rhode Island completely gutted and re-built their public pension system.
Many cities and municipalities in California, Pennsylvania, and Alabama reneged on their liabilities, incl. pensions.

My point above was that there haven't been any such cases in Canada so far.
New Brunswick, famously, re-structured their provincial pension system in 2012 - 2013, but those changes are being phased in.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Oh yes, for sure; my point was just that pension restructuring in the U.S. has included the rollback of what were thought to have been 'guaranteed' provisions such as cost-of-living increases - but the courts have found that those aspects of the plan are ancillary, not guaranteed. I don't think those issues have been fully tested in Canada.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> ... My understanding (as far as the federal one) is concerned, is that the payout has always been based on 2%*year work* avg 5 best year...


Based on the federal pension web site at http://pensionetavantages-pensionandbenefits.gc.ca/vrpr-yppg-eng.html#a5,
the 2% only applies to a part of the average salary.

The formula where the average salary exceeds the Average Maximum Pensionable Earnings (AMPE), is the sum of:

a) 1.375% x average salary up to Average Maximum Pensionable Earnings (AMPE) x years of pensionable service (capped at 35)

plus

b) 2% x average salary in excess of AMPE x years of pensionable service (capped at 35).


For 2013, AMPE was $51,200.


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

GM did try to cut retirement benefits for non union salaried managers already retired, but lost in court.

The court ruled that ancillary benefits could be subject to removal........except when the promise of them is reaffirmed over many years.

GM sent pension brochures out every year to employees........and it was the affirmation of the benefits in the brochures that caused them to lose the case.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...efits-against-general-motors/article13286921/

The court did also rule that GM could eliminate the benefits for current employees, if GM had retained the right in their contracts with employees.

Unionized workers have agreed to amend their contracts on numerous occasions, when the other option was the company closing or going bankrupt.

The Big Three autoworkers agreed to concessions and amend their contracts on several occasions during the recession years.

In the public sector a similar scenario could be that the government seeks concessions or will layoff employees.

In a standoff between the government and the unions...........the government tends to blink first.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Well that's interesting. I always understood it to be 2%. So if I read that correctly, it's quite a bit less.

Actually, on reflection it is 2%... The reason being that CPP is integrated into the pension, so that's why there's the AMPE threshold.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

fraser said:


> I get tired of people assuming that those people working our Public Service do not work hard or that the majority are sitting around doing nothing. It is a cheap shot.


You never met my brother.


----------



## warp (Sep 4, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Which book is that warp?
> I was thinking of the 2013 C.D. Howe report that put the unfunded liability at about $250B, which is terrible and scary enough as it is.


Sorry Harold...
I cannot remember the exact name of the book,,,but it was written by a very serious team of researchers. 
The amount of the total unfunded liabilities, and absolute waste in government spending was mind-blogging.

As I have been "retired" for many , many years, although I just turned a young 60.
I do have lots of time to read and ponder. I absolutely hate the public sector unions and the way they are sucking this country dry.
In fact I have not worked for several decades because I hate paying these ludicrous taxes on any extra monies I may earn. That is a ridiculous situation as the country would be far better served if entreprenuers could employ people without being punished for being "successfull".


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

fraser said:


> Lots of DB plans in the private sector have early pension benefits like '30 and out' in the auto industry or service plus age of 90 gets you out with a full pension. Not that dissimilar to many public service plans.
> 
> I get tired of people assuming that those people working our Public Service do not work hard or that the majority are sitting around doing nothing. It is a cheap shot.


The rich private sector DB pensions you talk about are falling like dominos. There are some current (old) retirees in the private sector with the famous 85 rule (age + service) for full pension but AFAIK, that formula no longer applies to any current employee or recent annuitant.... OR if it does, employee contributory rates have gone way up disproportionately. Many changes took place over the past 10 years in that regard.

The troubling part about public sector pensions is the government seems to believe the taxpayer is willing to open his/her wallet wider and wider all the time. Employer contributory rates should be frozen at current (or average of the last decade) rates, and if the employees continue to want the rich pensions, then their contributory rates should go up disproportionately as well. Much better me thinks that a wholesale move be made to DC contributory plans so that the taxpayer is only on the hook for a defined discrete amount.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

I took my pension entitlement last year-at age 61. I was entitled to a full pension starting at age 62. Private sector. No employee contributions but only a 1 percent per year of service formula. 

Some of these, albeit few, still exist in the private sector.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

When I retired early 8 years ago, one part of my pension from a large blue chip employer was based on 1.6% yr of service formula with full pension (60% max) possible at 60 (the early portion of my career) while the other part (for the last part of my career) was based, I think, on 1.2% yr of service formula with full pension possible at 62. I expect the employer will be downgrading it yet again or converting to DC on a go forward basis.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

warp said:


> Sorry Harold...
> I cannot remember the exact name of the book,,,but it was written by a very serious team of researchers.
> The amount of the total unfunded liabilities, and absolute waste in government spending was mind-blogging.


Hmm..maybe you are thinking of this one:


----------



## warp (Sep 4, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Hmm..maybe you are thinking of this one:


No Harold...that is not the book I was talking about, but funny enough I am waiting for that book, "TAX ME, I'M CANADIAN" at my local library as we speak. I put a "hold" on it last week! I am looking forward to reading it.
Briiliant minds think alike!

The book I read was very serious, and cerebral, and the authours seemed to know, through exhaustive research, what they were talking about. The book included dire warnings about the over one TRILLION dollars in present unfunded liabilities, and warned about chaos in the future if the issue of overly generous, and overly costly public service pensions and benefits were not corrected NOW.

I have made no secret of the fact that I hate the public sector unions, and particularly hate their pensions, ( which I am forced to pay for), even more. They should be treated like any other working Canadian, and save for their pensions like the rest of us.


----------

