# PCs clawing back Veteran's benefits



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Things are getting slow again..so I thought I might throw some more fodder on the table of discussion. 

Nov.5, the Veteran's Advocacy are asking for the general publics support in
their stand against the unfairness of the New Veteran's Charter. 

This is Veteran's Week ( Armistice Day/Veteran's Day Nov 11).
Why am I'm hearing about lot of unhappy vets complaining and protesting about the new bill C-215, which will claw back veterans benefits at age 65. 
"Der Fuehrer"..with his election majority, is now proceeding full steam ahead to save money, by reducing disabled and aged veteran's pensions,
in order to upgrade the military's war machines ...at their expense.

Veteran's who did their duty and served the country well in WWII, the
Korean conflict,Kosovo and those who came back from Afghanistan
and the disabled ones will get their benefits cut by VA. 

With the cost of living steadily rising each year, instead of ensuring that our vets have a dignified and affordable lifestyle as gratitude for serving their country in dangerous situations (that resulted in severe injuries/disabilities and cost over 157 their lives)...

Harper is now looking for ways to cut their benefits, to help pay for
the multi-billion dollar the F-35 joint strike fighter...sucking up to the
American Military-Industrial Complex. 

Shamefull! Shamefull! Hear! Hear! <rapping on House of Commons desks> 

http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/board/index.php?topic=962.0


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

It's a private members bill tabled by a* NDP *canidate from Sackville....most of these bills fail but some do squeak through...Don't use it to harp on Harper quite yet and don't forget to support your Legions and buy some poppies


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

You mean NDP member?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

DanFo said:


> It's a private members bill tabled by a* NDP *canidate from Sackville....most of these bills fail but some do squeak through...*Don't use it to harp on Harper quite yet *and don't forget to support your Legions and buy some poppies


I read it wrong.. Private members Bill C-215 is not to promote the clawback... but against it...in other words..requesting the Harper
led majority gov't to cancel the clawback for vets/RCMP. 

My understanding is that it's not just the vets, but RCMP and any other
gov't employees who have a superannuation pension *will also *be affected this new clawback. 

QUOTE:
*What happens is that when members of the RCMP and military receive either a Canada disability pension or the Canada pension, it is deducted dollar for dollar from their superannuation plan, which leaves many of our heroes in Canada in financial dire straits when they retire or when they become disabled. This is simply wrong. Thousands upon thousands of veterans and their families, RCMP members and their families have asked that this injustice be corrected.

When we introduced this bill in the House of Commons the last time, the Conservatives, unfortunately, defeated it. We are hoping they have had a change of heart over the past election. We are hoping, for the sake of our heroes in this country, that we can correct this historical wrong. ENDQUOTE.*

Of course Harper wiil be using the money saved from the clawbacks, for superjets,superjails and corporate tax cuts, because the oil patch have him in their back pockets!

BTW..Harper has a majority now..so IF the bill passes second reading it
would go to the Harper stacked Senate for "rubber stamp" approval
or rejection. 

http://users.eastlink.ca/~clawback1/page-05.htm


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

All austerity measures will feel unfair to those who they directly effect. We need to look beyond this. All in all, I don't think we treat our veterens unfairly and god know our governments need to cut spending, everywhere they can.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> All austerity measures will feel unfair to those who they directly effect. We need to look beyond this. All in all, I don't think we treat our veterens unfairly and god know our governments need to cut spending, everywhere they can.


Then cut out the multi-billion dollar "sweet heart-non competitive deal
with the American Military-industrial Complex on the JSF F-35. 

We don't need supersonic planes to protect our northern polar boundaries..wrong plane for that job,
when the Americans are taking step to protect their own border
across Canada,.those jets are going to be useless to protect the maritime
borders.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Can someone provide a good link on this? I can find lots of not-so-good ones. 

As far as I can tell, the issue seems to be that disabled vets and RCMP officers are concerned that they cannot receive a full retirement pension on top of a disability pension, but instead the two pensions are blended - and they are characterizing the blending of disability and retirement pensions as a "clawback" of retirement pensions. 

Is that right?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

If you keep relating, unrelated expenses to every cut then none of these democratic countries can ever get their budgets in order.

I'll admit. I know very little about veterens benefits and/or military spending. All I know is when I hear about a cut back in government spending, I applaud first and criticize later.

We need to move on from this cut to cutting GIS, free nursing home care, and that tax credit to help kids play extra curricular sports (for god's sakes). Can you imagine the backlash and non-related spending examples you will hear when they get around to cutting those.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> Can someone provide a good link on this? I can find lots of not-so-good ones.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the issue seems to be that disabled vets and RCMP officers are concerned that they cannot receive a full retirement pension on top of a disability pension, but instead the two pensions are blended - and *they are characterizing the blending of disability and retirement pensions as a "clawback" of retirement pensions.*
> 
> Is that right?


from my perspective it appears right. 

But it appears that the clawback that was to affect gov't retirees at age 65, now seems to going through some change as well. 

Gov't retirees on superannuation that qualified for CPP payments, were going to get clawed back at age 65 normally. 
Those that applied for early reduced CPP benefits at 60, were under the assumption that their superannuation pension payments would not
be subject to clawback until they reached age 65..but now it appears
that the clawback is being changed as well and going to affect any gov't employee on superannuation pension from age 60 onwards.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

I'm all for anything that reduces gov't employees' pensions. Just found out my dad's pension is reduced by the amount of CPP he will receive. This seems like a similar initiative. I may be wrong, haven't followed the issue closely.

Do govt pensions normally get reduced by the amount of CPP received?


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

Most DB pensions public or private have an option called a bridge pension...Basically they pay out more before you reach the age when you can collect CPP and then reduce the pension by the CPP ammount when it kicks in. The purpose is to have a consistant payout through retirement. I think most public pensions it's a must but I'm not too sure.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Dmoney said:


> Do govt pensions normally get reduced by the amount of CPP received?


There was a long thread on this subject a few months ago; I'll see if I can find it and post a link to it.

A rather simplified answer is yes, if federal public servants retire before 65, they receive the whole amount of their pension, calculated as follows:

Pension = 2% of the average of the best five years of salary x number of years of service. 

When the pensioner reaches 65, their pension is reduced according to a formula that was described to me when I asked about it as being "too complicated to explain to you." Such service! My pension dropped at 65 from $1580 to $1184, but since I only worked for them for about 16 years, I retained about 75% of mine. I understand that the longer you have worked for the government, the more of your pension you lose. The following is a quote from a letter I received from the government shortly before my 65th birthday explaining the reduction:

_The Canada Pension Plan (CPP)and Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) came into effect on Janary 1, 1966. It was decided at the time that these new plans should be integrated with the Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA).

Until that time, federal employees had been contributing a certain percentage of their salaries to the Public Service Pension Fund. Instead of increasing the contributions as required for the CPP or the QPP, it was decided to maintain the same rate. Since that time, federal employees have been contributing to the Public Service Fund at a reduced rate.

Consequently, when a person turns 65, their pension is reduced even if the person started receiving an early retirement pension from the CPP or the QPP between the age of 60 and 65. It should be noted that if this person is receiving disability benefits from one of these plans, the Superannuation Sector should be notified immediately to avoid an overpayment of the Public Service pension. The Public Service pension has to be reduced immediately._

There is no option for federal public servants. My friend who retired from a hospital job in Alberta said it doesn't apply to her - in fact, she didn't know what I was talking about and I had to show her the letter from the government before she believed me. So I assume that she paid a larger percentage into her pension plan over the years than I did, but I don't know whether that was an option that she chose, or whether the hospital chose that option at the time the CPP came into effect.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Karen said:


> Consequently, when a person turns 65, their pension is reduced even if the person started receiving an early retirement pension from the CPP or the QPP between the age of 60 and 65. It should be noted that if this person is receiving disability benefits from one of these plans, the Superannuation Sector should be notified immediately to avoid an overpayment of the Public Service pension. The Public Service pension has to be reduced immediately.[/I]


That provision has been there for quite a while now, Karen. Up to now,
public service retirees could retire (depending on the number of years of service( early..ie: before age 60 if they qualify for early retirement) and draw superannuation. When they reach age 60, they can apply for CPP as well,
and up to now, from what I've been told, they can draw CPP and an unreduced superannuation pension until age 65. 

However, unsubstantiated rumours circulating around, indicate that this may be changing as the baby boomers are all retiring now, or soon. Obviously
this may be another loophole that the Harper gov't wants to close.

This may be the issue that the vets/RCMP retirees are complaining about
as I'm not sure if their military pension included CPP as a benefit or if
they paid into it separately.

I agree that this story and information on the vet's/retired RCMP pension
plight is a bit convoluted..but obviously most feel that they are being
shortchanged now with what is going on this year.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Yes, I did know that provision has been in effect for a long time, Carverman. My mother was affected by it when she retired from the federal public service in the early 80s. I was just answering Dmoney's question about whether federal pensions are reduced at age 65.

I believe the current rule about early retirement is that public servants can take early retirement at 55 with no penalty if they have 30 years of service. I retired at age 62 and started collecting both my reduced CPP and my full pension until I turned 65 when my federal pension was reduced. If I'm understanding you correctly, I think you're saying that under the rumoured changes, using my case as an example, my pension would have been reduced when I retired at 62 instead of at 65, as was the case then and still is?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Karen said:


> I believe the current rule about early retirement is that public servants can take early retirement at 55 with no penalty if they have 30 years of service. I retired at age 62 and started collecting both my reduced CPP and my full pension until I turned 65 when my federal pension was reduced. If I'm understanding you correctly, *I think you're saying that under the rumoured changes, using my case as an example, my pension would have been reduced when I retired at 62 instead of at 65,* as was the case then and still is?


Karen. I'm not sure. But this is a real life example I can mention.

I was talking to a retired federal gov't pensioner who worked for 35+ years at the federal gov't, before she retired at age 55 on her birthday.

She's 59 now and applied for CPP benefits to commence in March
2012 after her 60th birthday in April 2012.

Apparently she was given the usual information by Service Canada that the CPP will be "reduced" from the normal amount payable. That she understood because there is a 1/2 percent reduction per month X number of years taken earlier (ie: 6% a year x 5 years to age 65) is about 30%.
As of Jan 1, 2012, that 1/2 percent is increased slightly as well to .6%? per month (I think), to penalize early CPP applicants even futher.

She knew about that and accepted that applying for CPP early would still give her 60 months to collect CPP, even if reduced by 30-33%, because she understood (at least up to now) that her gov't pension would not get reduced until age 65 if she's drawing CPP as well. 

This didn't bother her as much as talking to a Service Canada rep about
her CPP application that "new rules are in the works for 2012".
Those new rules may affect her superannuation that she has been drawing since retiring at 55 with 35+ years of service, if she decides to take CPP early at age 60. 

(Note: this is unsubstantiated second hand information, but I have no reason not to believe that she is concerned about the possible drop in
her gov't pension by the CPP amount if it happens). 

So, these unsubstantiated "hints" by the Service Canada rep, got her 
worried. She got on the phone and started to call her retired co-workers that worked with her in the various gov't depts she worked during those 
36 years.

They heard similar rumours through the "grapevine" that the Harper gov't is now considering eliminating that loophole (Fed gov't retirees drawing CPP at age 60, and NOT having the Superannuation pension reduced ), because of the increased cost of servicing all the retirees from 2012
onwards. 

So now,Service Canada are waving a "carrot" to entice gov't retiree CPP applicants,that if they prefer to wait until age 70 or 75 they will can get MORE CPP. 
Well, that may be true, but we can see where this is all coming from..
by those critical health years at age 70-75, not all gov't pensioners will be around to draw CPP..so it is to their advantage to "offer more" if you prefer to wait.

With this scheme, if a certain percentage of gov't retirees (and other CPP
pensioners), die off before reaching 70 or 75, they save all those
CPP payments, only having to pay out a token $2500 for 
final death benefit.. and only if you qualify..ie: you would have to have applied, and drawing CPP already, to qualify for even that $2500 "gift". You just can't trust what the Harper gov't is up to these days.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

That's pretty bad, isn't it, when they can change the rules mid-stream like that. I've always been surprised, though, at the way Service Canada has always described their Superannuation plan. All the years I worked for the gov't, we were always told to use the formula I mentioned above to calculate the amount of pension we would receive (2% x average best five years salary x no. of years of service). That's very misleading, really, because we only receive that amount if we retire early for the few years before we reach 65. Well, as you said, it's still only rumour - we'll have to wait and see what happens next!

As for your comment about not trusting the Harper government, do you know of any government we can trust? I don't think there is any such thing!


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

carverman said:


> Harper is now looking for ways to cut their benefits, to help pay for the multi-billion dollar the F-35 joint strike fighter...sucking up to the American Military-Industrial Complex.


Harper is cutting back everything which is probably fiscally responsible considering the economic environment and the increasing life expectancy of retirees. The military budget overall is being cut back substantially whereas it is already low compared what other countries spend as % GDP (including fighter jets which are just a small portion of the overall defense spending). Canada spends 1-2% GDP on defense ranked ~100th despite having one of the 10th largest and strongest economies. 1.5% is a nice balance I think even though it is low however once you neglect the military such as the 90's you end up just burning significantly more money needlessly due to poor planning.



> Canadian defence policy today is based on the *Canada First Defence Strategy*, introduced by the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper after he took office in 2006. Based on that strategy, the Canadian military is oriented and being equipped to carry out six core missions within Canada, in North America and globally. Specifically, the Forces are tasked with having the capacity to:
> Conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command);
> Support a major international event in Canada, such as the 2010 Winter Olympics;
> Respond to a major terrorist attack;
> ...


Unless you have an issue with these core missions, fighter jets are a basic requirement for Canada's defense policy, just like any other developed country. We could buy a dedicated interceptor like we had before the multirole F-18's, but the multirole capability has proven to give you a lot more bang for the buck. We could buy sub sonic aircraft like you recommend, but that would be like police cars governed at 120kmh (airliners fly just below supersonic speeds) We could keep using the F-18s until they fall out of the sky, but that would be ignoring the cost of maintenance/upgrades and the cost of having more backups etc. It's like driving an old car that costs more to maintain than a new one and breaks down when you need it most, causing you to spend more money on taxis etc. You might save a little on a different fighter jet, but then we wouldn't be part of the contracts and development and the little money you save is not worth the capabilities lost. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Anyways the media is focusing on 1 part of the defense budget because they are shiny fighter jets, even though it only represents ~0.3% of the Federal budget. I don't think veterans benefits are cut to pay for fighter jets. The military has already announced cuts to NATO and European participation that doesn't align with the Canada First Defense strategy that can offset the cost of new jets. I'm all for people being aware of what the military is buying, but what about the other 99.7% of the Federal budget? Maybe we should all weigh in on what type of destroyers the Navy should build? Even though I have no clue what kind of destroyers the Navy needs..

As for the public pensions, it's a touchy subject for sure. I know many people who work in public sectors are aware they could earn a lot more in the private sector. They stay for the pension, and people even say that they might as well leave if it is cut back too much. On the other hand if something is not sustainable, I applaud a government that looks ahead for solutions, instead of just telling you what you want to hear until it all crashes down and leaves future vets with nothing.

Oddly, most people haven't the slightest clue about how their public service pensions are calculated or how much they deserve. I've often heard the same thing as Karen "too complicated to explain" The media certainly doesn't explain anything. The military pensions have been cut back for years. When I joined, you would get a pension after 20 years of service at which time you could do the same job without the uniform and get paid twice instead. This is no longer the case. It's seems that governments keep cutting back on taxes and cutting back on public sector employees to appease the voters but at some point it goes too far. Like Harper says, there's lots of money out there on the sidelines to keep this economy rolling. Maybe that's where we should look for answers.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ I get what you're saying, mode. But watching UAV technology rapidly develop, I can't help but wonder what the state of the art with be in 20 years. I suspect these F-35s will be inferior in every way because of the squishy bit in the middle.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good point Andrew,

As the technology continues to get better, the need for traditional fighter jets becomes more mute. The cost of one fighter jet and all the pilot training, would probably pay for a fleet of controlled drones.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Karen said:


> As for your comment about not trusting the Harper government, do you know of any government we can trust? I don't think there is any such thing!


Karen; with Harper now given a majority with no real opposition, now that
Jack Layton is gone...Harper will slowing dismantle the social safety
net that Tommy Douglas (Medicare) and other social programs was set
up by previous gov'ts. 

We all remember that "little" Page in the House of Commons a few months
back with her "STOP HARPER" sign, she showed for a few seconds
in front of the camera. She was disciplined and probably fired for
that, however, the message was clear to those that think Harper will make things better in the next 4 years..it probably isn't going to happen. 

Remember the National Child Daycare program that Paul Martin wanted to
setup, but lost the election to Harper? Harper scrapped that and gave
each family $100 per month for each qualified child in lieu of giving them
day care spaces. To make matters worse, he laughed and added that
$100 as a taxable income credit. Now where can anyone get full time
daycare (5 days a week) for $25.00 a week these days?

IMO, Harper bit by bit is slowly dismantling all the things that made Canada a better place for families. Now he's working on cutting benefits to the vets and pensioners too. 

Just watch what happens in 2014, when the Health Accord negotiated in 1994 with Paul Martin between the Federal gov't and the provinces expires! 
Do you really think that Harper will continue with the same level of funding
for medicare?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> ^ I get what you're saying, mode. But watching UAV technology rapidly develop, I can't help but wonder what the state of the art with be in 20 years. I suspect these F-35s will be inferior in every way because of the squishy bit in the middle.


The initial purchase price on the F-35 is just for the airframes. Engines,
avionics and ECM (electronic counter measures) will add to to billions more.
What the heck is wrong the with next gen Super F-18 or whatever it's called?

Ok, it doesn't have stealth technology and maybe it's not state of the art
in next gen aircraft design, but the design and aircraft IS proven and they
would be a lot cheaper to buy in the long run.

Giving out contracts for fighter aircraft without going through a competition
is similar to Diefenbaker cancelling the Avro Arrow after hundreds of millions
in 1957 dollars (probably billions today) was spent on the program for some
useless Bomarc missles supplied by the Americans that didn't work out in
the long run.

A fighter aircraft industry was thrown into the garbage can! Canadian
innovation, design and technology was tossed aside as well.

We don't need supersonic stealth fighters to fight 3rd world conflicts
(such as Afghanistan or recently Libya. With the enemy forces on the
ground with RPGs, Ak47s and light vehicle mounte machine guns,
an F-18 will do a fine job at eliminating them.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Sure UAV technology has huge potential and could save money in the end but to get them certified to replace fighters in every way could take 20 years in itself. The US carries most of the R&D costs and if you want that to happen faster the cost goes up exponentially. You need a backup until then and this is like driving your beater car waiting for technology that is 20/30 years away.

There's a lot of hidden costs with UAVs. Off the top of my head you need satellites and you technically need something to protect those satellites or else that's a heck of an Achilles heel. If you want UAVs doing air policing you have to make them safe enough to fly in close range of your family in a domestic airliner. This means changing a lot of very sensitive procedures etc. You have to replace all the command centers to integrate UAV control etc etc. I'm not sure there's a study to compare the costs but the initial setup would be atrocious. It took years of serious infrastructure upgrades to get up to the current L16 standard to be ready for 4th/5th gen fighters. If someone snapped their fingers and said to integrate UAVs asap, a lot of recently bought infrastructure goes in the garbage and the price goes way up to make things happen faster. Obviously the Americans aren't doing this anytime soon, so why would we take up this R&D burden? Not to mention there's no NASA space shuttle to launch the required satellites

Military is all about planning for the worst and having a brain in the airframe that is ranked to make decisions on his own covers a lot of those "what ifs" Unless you think AI is ready to make decisions about deadly force on its own? UAVs are a lot more complicated. It's like buying robocops to save money on police


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

carverman said:


> The initial purchase price on the F-35 is just for the airframes. Engines,
> avionics and ECM (electronic counter measures) will add to to billions more.
> What the heck is wrong the with next gen Super F-18 or whatever it's called?
> 
> ...


I like the Super Hornet myself but it is old technology that costs nearly as much when you consider the complete picture. Its avionics and sensors are ancient compared to the JSF so you need double the air frames which doubles the cost of pilot training and maint and aux associates costs. I think the Super Hornet would do the job just fine, but the JSF is probably a smarter purchase over all. Half the air frames and it stays relevant for much longer (Super Hornet is old tech) you stay current with allies and you have far more capabilities. JSF was a competition in itself to find a 5th gen fighter to fill all these roles at once. Let's say you save $15Bil over 30 years or 0.01% Federal budget by skimping on the jets, you lose JSF economic contracts as none of the Super Hornet is made in Montréal and I'm not sure there's much benefit. Hard to say I'm sure there's other considerations

I say we just watch how it works out for the Aussies and Marines. Aussie F-111s had to be replaced already by Super Hornets and now they may need more to fill the gap before JSFs are operational. Same thing for the Marines with the Harriers, and maybe other Euro countries with aging F-16s. They are not happy with having to buy the Super Hornets just like the Marines are avoiding them like the plague, hoping the JSF is ready on time. We have the luxury to operate our F-18s until the dust settles. The reason they don't want them is it's not designed for the same roles, old tech, and out performed by even current adversary aircraft. There are unfriendly countries with jets - keeping ahead in the specs kind of wins the fight passively (which also saves money)

It would be nice if Canada developed its own fighter like the Avro or Saab. Far too late for that. Sweden has their Gripen on the market in time but hardly anyone is interested besides a few small leases - it has no range. Countries also see political and economic benefits to working with the JSF instead of buying from Sweden.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> Sure UAV technology has huge potential and could save money in the end but to get them certified to replace fighters in every way could take 20 years in itself. The US carries most of the R&D costs and if you want that to happen faster the cost goes up exponentially. You need a backup until then and this is like driving your beater car waiting for technology that is 20/30 years away.


I bet it's going to happen within the next 10 years. Homeland Security is
driving a fence across their northern border with Canada. They are
expecting to use drones/UAVs to patrol the border area in conjuction
with eye-in-the-sky military satellites already up there. 



> Obviously the Americans aren't doing this anytime soon, so why would we take up this R&D burden? Not to mention there's no NASA space shuttle to launch the required satellites.


Who know what the American military or Homeland Security are thinking.
Anything is possible as they have the technology at their disposal and if
they don't they will give out contracts to develop it.

You mentioned that the UAVs could be a threat to airlines. Airlines fly at 20 to 30 thousand feet normally, and drop down to land near airports. 

UAVs can fly really low and hug the terrain at low altitude, so I can't see that as being a show stopper.

In areas where there is low flying commercial aircraft traffic, they will set up corridors for nofly zones for the UAV. With GPS navigation they can program the UAV to fly only in certain areas and at specific altitudes. 

As far as not having any launch vehicles for future satellites, that isn't
exactly true either. Long before they decided to use the shuttle for taking
up satellites, they had the Thor-Delta launch vehicles. 

Telesat (where I worked for a couple years during the launch of Anik I, used the Delta launch vehicles. (Not sure which model of Delta they used to launch their satellites into synchronous orbit). It was in 1972, that
much I still remember, because we were busy setting up the TT&C tracking antenna to track the launch to determine when to fire the AMF (apogee motor fire) for synchronous orbit injection. 
The Delta launch vehicle just got the Anik I satellite into transfer orbit and from there we were on our own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_(rocket_family)

The european Ariane rocket program is another commercial venture for lauching space vehicles. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_(rocket_family)

The US Airforce also has a couple rocket launch vehicles to boost miltary 
satellites into orbit, so they don't need NASA's space shuttle to do that.
While NASA was willing to hoist commercial satellites in their payload bay
it was more economical for satellite launches as the biggest cost of the
launch was borne by NASA. After the Challenger rocket explosion in 1986, 
the commercial use of the space shuttle for launching satellites was 
suspended, but they still secretly launched any military satellites, since
a certain portion of the shuttle orbiter missions were of a military nature,
just that the public was not informed of any military programs using the
shuttle in the interests of national security.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

UAVs are already used on the US borders. That's completely different role from replacing NORAD fighter jets, which fly in very close proximity to domestic airliners. If the US was going this way, why would they develop the F22 as their air sovereignty aircraft. If you are familiar with satellites you should know their limitations specifically over the arctic.. Try using GPS up there or finding a TV signal (hint you point the dish at the ground) Satellites aren't cheap to operate or protect, and then if you lose signal for whatever reason you're hooped


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Dmoney said:


> I'm all for anything that reduces gov't employees' pensions. Just found out my dad's pension is reduced by the amount of CPP he will receive. This seems like a similar initiative. I may be wrong, haven't followed the issue closely.
> 
> Do govt pensions normally get reduced by the amount of CPP received?


Approximately. It is not exactly dollar-for dollar. The superannuation pension plan uses a fixed formula that is a close approximation to what the CPP benefit will be at age 65. This is a common provision not only in government plans but in any pension plan that has "integration of benefits" with the CPP. Some retirees think they are being robbed when they hear this, but their pension contributions are all based on this integration.


----------



## ghostryder (Apr 5, 2009)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Approximately. It is not exactly dollar-for dollar. The superannuation pension plan uses a fixed formula that is a close approximation to what the CPP benefit will be at age 65. This is a common provision not only in government plans but in any pension plan that has "integration of benefits" with the CPP. Some retirees think they are being robbed when they hear this, *but their pension contributions are all based on this integration*.



I for one cannot emphasize how important this part is. If a pensioner doesn't like the "integration of CPP" they would have had to pay higher pension contributions during their working life.

And it's not like this integration is some big secret. It's common for DB pensions, and clearly described in one's pension documentation.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> UAVs are already used on the US borders. That's completely different role from replacing NORAD fighter jets, which fly in very close proximity to domestic airliners. If the US was going this way, why would they develop the F22 as their air sovereignty aircraft.


I dunno?..why should we be concerned about what the US is planning?

They have their own agenda. They own the military industrial complex
which takes a percentage of their GDP to run. it's an industry there
that employs hundreds of thousands. 
Canada doesn't have that and doesn't need to support that. 
All we need is an updated fighter to serve our needs.
It doesn't have to be the the latest and greatest, but something that is fully functional in all weather and environmental conditions for the roles that it needs to be in.

I'm not talking about going off to fight in foreign problems like Afghanistan..that wasn't very effective in the first place, but I'm
not going to get into that here..as this is already deviating from the
intent of this thread which was to discuss veterans pensions. 

You can't use supersonic jets in mountainous terrain..they overshoot
too fast and have to fly too high. 




> If you are familiar with satellites you should know their limitations specifically over the arctic..


Communications satellites in geosynchronous orbit around the equator have
limited application in the far artic. However, Canada's Telesat series of
satellites are specifically designed to provide adequate service for Northern
Ontario/Quebec and out west aboriginal communities, with communication
and tv service. 
Communities above the artic circle have to use different types of service (tropo-scatter), because of the curvature of the earth, and the effects of the magnetic field and aurora-borealis...
but this phenomena also affects the JSF-35, so it would be TOTALLY
USELESS up there as far a communicating with the ground, no matter
how fast it can fly. 
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2011/10/3245-canadas-new-f-35-stealth-fighter.html



> Try using GPS up there or finding a TV signal (hint you point the dish at the ground) Satellites aren't cheap to operate or protect, and then if you lose signal for whatever reason you're hooped


I'm quite aware of this after 40 years as a communication systems engineer. I worked in those environments with Telesat in the early 70s, familiar limitations of any kind of communication above the artic circle because we had signal strength issues that we had to resolve with bigger dishes, increased "spot power antennas" on the Anik series, as well as frequency/terresterial spacing diversity (redundancy) to try to get around it and serve the near north. Yes, it's a definitely a challenge for any kind
of communications up there due to the magnetic shield.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ghostryder said:


> I for one cannot emphasize how important this part is. If a pensioner doesn't like the "integration of CPP" they would have had to pay higher pension contributions during their working life.
> 
> *And it's not like this integration is some big secret. It's common for DB pensions, and clearly described in one's pension documentation*.


These were people who provided military service to Canada. Why should they
have to read fine print in documentation or be concerned about pensions
when they were off fighting for Canada in foreign wars?

They had a tough enough job to do, and had a hard enough time to avoid being blown to bits outright or severely injured.
Do you expect a soldier engaged in a mission to be tapped on the shoulder by a gov't CPP rep, to stop.... and read the fine print about the
integrated pensions and consider any personal options?

Most military personnel would assume that being in the government's military service, the gov't would take care of them in retirement with 
adequate pensions.....obviously that isn't going to happen.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ Please. This is condescending. Former service personnel should not have to read the contracts they enter into?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

andrewf said:


> ^ Please. This is condescending. Former service personnel should not have to read the contracts they enter into?


I assume that is a joke.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> ^ Please. This is condescending. Former service personnel should not have to read the contracts they enter into?


Why is it condescending? I am DEFENDING the fact that military personnel
should not have to read the fine print in regards to their pension benefits
at signup or any other time for that matter. You obviously didn't understand the nature of my post. 

What I am saying is, that when you are assigned a tour of duty in a foreign
land where your life and limb is at risk, why in blazes should a soldier
of Canada have to be concerned with pension issues in a firefight or a
dangerous mission where the risk of being killed is very high?

As a soldier, there is enough day to day pressure and things like marching orders/drills/mission prepardness to occupy your time. 

Are you as soldier, supposed to ask your immediate commanding officer that you are very concerned about your FUTURE pension benefits,
and so you would like to schedule an appt on a miltary base,with gov't pension reps, to discuss pension issues after you have ALREADY signed up?

You would (probably) get the proverbial swift kick in the a*s for that!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think soldiers are responsible adults who can enter into contracts without needing special state protection. You're essentially asserting that soldiers should not be bound by the contracts they enter into, like minor children.

The point remains is that they are getting the pension they pay for, no more, no less. If that fine print were not in the contract, they would have paid more for their pension during their careers.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I think soldiers are responsible adults who can enter into contracts without needing special state protection.


Exactly. Where would this end. If they can't enter into contracts by themselves, should we really be issuing them guns?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> Exactly. Where would this end. If they can't enter into contracts by themselves, should we really be issuing them guns?


I don't know how it's done now at the recruiting centers, but I would presume
that as a regular off the street recruit (not the ROTP commission ranks), you ask certain questions at the recruiting center, like pay etc, but rarely would
anyone off the street ask about seeing the fine print in regard to pensions.
Once you are inducted into the services, you are given a date of departure
to a boot camp and from there on its guns, target practice, drills, drills and
more drills. The focus is on survival and being in top physical shape before
being assigned to a CFB base. 

I wouldn't think that most recruits think of it as a lifetime career. 
Most join for many personal reasons and having a gov't pension at the
end isn't one of them. it happens though if they are in the services
long enough..then they find out around the time of retirement..when
it is too late.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I think soldiers are responsible adults who can enter into contracts without needing special state protection. You're essentially *asserting that soldiers should not be bound by the contracts they enter into, like minor children.*


C'mon Andrew! Most off the street recruits are in the late teens/early 20s.
The last thing a 18-21 year old is concerned about at that age is a military
pension. When I was in the reserves in the 60s (30th field artillery Ottawa,
aka the "Bytown Gunners"..I was more concerned about adventure..yes
being driven around to Petawawa to fire the "big guns", getting paid,and
getting drunk, and maybe if one was lucky..getting....well you can figure
out the rest.  

Yes, soldiers are bound by the military code, once they sign up..they have to
pledge an oath to the Queen and Canada, and they can't just quit and go AWOL if they feel like it..they would be arrested by the MPs and thrown in the "brig"..military jail until their courtmartial hearing. 

In wartime (at least WWI, deserting in while facing the enemy was considered cowardice and high treason and punishable by firing squad at dawn. No matter if you were in shell shock trauma or Post traumatic stress
disorder (whatever it's called now)..if you were called to go over the top, you had to go. If not, you could be shot on the spot by an officer in the trenches.

In WWII you were arrested and handled a bit differently and if you were
courtmartial with a dishonorable discharge from the service, you could 
kiss your pension goodbye and perhaps ..long military prison sentence
if courtmartial for deriliction of duty. According to military doctrine and discipline, you were bound by the military code,
and punished accordingly if you didn't follow orders or by insubordination. 



> The point remains is that they are getting the pension they pay for, no more, no less. If that fine print were not in the contract, they would have paid more for their pension during their careers.


I don't think they are given an option on paying more pension. Does anybody
else have more information on this??


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Most military people I knew owe a lot more to the military and their country then their country and military owes them. Their lives were going no where, they either had bad upbringing or threw away the opportunities that were offered to every Canadian and if it wasn't for the military there would be no other place for them. The military saved them and gave them a career and a purpose.

Obviously there are exceptions here, like there is everywhere but I think people take the services that our gallant veterens gave in WWll and WWl and automatically associate that service to all current soldiers. This is where I dissagree.

In any event, they should get what is owed to them, like all hard working people should. Giving them pedistals is a little much, in my opinion.


----------



## Baccalieu (Nov 9, 2011)

There seems to be some confusion between a disabled 
veteran pension and a non disabled veteran pension, they 
are not the same.
However I do believe disabled Veterans are not getting a
fair deal and our Govt should be doing more for them.

The so called military pension clawback is another thing. 
The same reduction in pension money at age 65 applies to:

a) all Federal Public Sector workers, civilian, military, and RCMP 
b) Provincial sector workers, many municipal workers and also 
c) some private sector workers 


I would like to point out that "soldiers" arent the only
members of the Canadian forces. There are airmen and 
sailors who also serve, and like soldiers, a number of 
them did not or will not see wartime action.

As to pension information, it was available back in the 
dark ages of the late 60s when I was in the military and in
these modern times it should be readily available online.
Every military establishment would have at least one 
military staff member in the Finance/Admin 
section who would be knowledgeable on the subject.

None of the Federal Employees have the option of making
more or larger pension contributions. Its all laid down in 
the Pension Act and the military and RCMP would have 
been participants in all negotiations concerning the Act, 
including the reduction at age 65.

Clawback to any gov't employees superannuation pension 
from age 60 onwards appears to be nothing more than a 
rumor as none of the unions or retiree organizations
-- FSNA, PSAC, etc -- mention it.



> Canadian Forces Pension Office. Date Modified: 011-11-08
> 
> Q8. What happens if I take an early CPP/QPP retirement benefit prior to age 65?
> 
> The former member's annuity will not be reduced until attaining age 65 or unless upon receipt of CPP/QPP disability benefit prior age 65. It is not necessary to advise Canadian Forces Pension Services that an annuitant is receiving early CPP/QPP retirement benefits.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

The military is the largest organization in Canada by far so any generalization is just that. Most military people you know probably isn't a fair sample of 100,000 people? There are positions in the military with lineups of applicants and there are jobs for people you describe. It's irrelevant because there is still 10% unemployment in Canada as most would prefer to sit on the street than serve and recruitment was actually way up for combat arms during Afghanistan. Most who join have other reasons than getting a job and most have other options. The initial training weeds out the majority who are just there for a paycheque and many more.

Like carver says pensions aren't really talked about at all just like we don't negotiate our pay. Whereas the private sector is more fend for yourself, soldiers sort of trust that superiors will look after them as a group and they don't really worry about what they are paid nearly as much. I've never received any formal information on pensions or paperwork. I joined thinking in the back of my head the pensions required 20 years of service, but it changed to 25 years minimum with no paperwork or warning. Most military people are aware they can earn more in the private sector if they are qualified in the same job. I could make twice as much working 9-5 ATC, but I've seen that it's not nearly as interesting or rewarding in other ways. Pensions seem to me like a free loan from the soldiers as you pay them less now, but you pay them more later.

I agree that WWI and II vets deserve a higher recognition with ceremonies and such but the pension is irrelevant. Soldiers today will still work 24 hrs per day if there is any reason to or leave their families on short notice on a holiday and other things civilians would consider inhumane. Regardless whether they drove down roads with IEDs or worked all night to put sand bags around your house or risked their life during search and rescue or saving Cdn evacuees from hostile or dangerous situations, they deserve a pension for their service. I don't think any soldier expects to be put on any pedestal, they just expect to be looked after by the people they served. People will always complain when benefits are cut back but if it's unsustainable it's better to fix it now than later.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Ok get this, I am not against soldiers...

My dad was in the army, he hit a tree on skis over 50 years ago not while on duty incidentally, he still gets a military pension for his "knee injury"

Now his knee was broken and he's been walking and running on it for the last 70 years. He's also been well enough to work 18 hour days in construction since I was knee high to a grasshopper. 

He also gets a pension. 

As a self employed person, I find it offensive that you get a pension from the military for an "injury" for at least the last 40 damn years. The knee was broke then it healed... why the hell do you owe anyone anything. 

I also get no pension plan after being landlords' bati boy for the last 15 years. 

Seriously I can't refuse to rent someone an apartment when they're old go get a job who said that at 65 years old you automatically deserve government welfare till you die. Carry your damn weight or it's the ice flo for you grand pa/ma.

Seriously if you're healthy work, if you're not healthy and can't work fine. But why 65? why not 45? or even 25? What the hell let's all take the week off and go to Mexico. 

Seriously just because you have a gray hair doesn't mean I owe you...


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Berubeland said:


> Ok get this, I am not against soldiers...
> 
> My dad was in the army, he hit a tree on skis over 50 years ago not while on duty incidentally, he still gets a military pension for his "knee injury"
> 
> ...


Your father either lied on his paperwork or the rules have changed over the past 50 years. Your injury has to be related to military service not skiing off duty. It also has to be a permanent injury. I wasn't even allowed to go skiing during the Olympics because I couldn't be spared from duty if I happened to break a knee. You're self employed in the glorious capitalist system that let's you earn as much as you desire the sky is the limit, and you can shelter most of it under a corporation to pay a lot less in taxes. If you can't make the big bucks in the dog eat dog world like OpstyEagle says you are just the person to join and earn a pension - it's not as hard as WWI or II so it should be easy for anyone to put in 25 years right.

I think the pensions are well planned out to keep people in the military. Once they are qualified and somewhat experienced, most could earn a lot more elsewhere. After 10 years, you might as well put in another 10 to get a DB pension. After 20-25 years, many are comfortable and might as well stay in until retirement instead of trying to start over. If you took away the pension and just paid them more from the start, they might as well quit after 10 years and get paid the same without the commitment to serve under "unlimited liability". IE you don't have to die to get your land lord a new tenant if things are dire. Military training is not cheap to replace at all so it likely even makes financial sense to pay pensions

If someone is permanently hurt in duty, then yes they deserve a disability pension. In fact disability payments come off my pay just like the pension payments. I'm pretty sure you can get disability payments if you work for a corporation as well. If you're self employed, well that is the downside of fending for yourself but on the upside the sky is the limit as to how much you can earn. If people need your help, you have no "unlimited liability" requirement to help them


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Berubeland said:


> Ok get this, I am not against soldiers...
> 
> My dad was in the army, he hit a tree on skis over 50 years ago not while on duty incidentally, he still gets a military pension for his "knee injury".


Even if he wasn't exactly on duty, being injured seriously enough that he
could not report for duty (marching or other things that require 100% 
mobility in his area of responsiblilty (not a military paper pusher/desk job)
he would be deemed to be on temporary disability until removed from the
military's disability list. 
Obviously , if he kept quiet about his remarkable recovery with full function 
and use of his broken knee after 40? 70? years, ( a broken knee can be
quite serious disability), then it could be a case of double dipping! 



> As a self employed person, I find it *offensive that you get a pension from the military for an "injury" for at least the last 40 damn years*. The knee was broke then it healed... why the hell do you owe anyone anything.


Because his injury was reported under disability rules, and until someone
changes his status (military doctor examines his knee etc), he would still
be on the LTD list. Owing anyone anything has nothing to do with it when
you are temporary-permanently disabled.
Obviously if someone caught wind of your GF working on a construction site and still collecting disability, if he was in the military he would be brought before a tribunal (military) and possibly be in for some serious trouble...
that is... if this was found out during his military career.

So, I would assume then, that his "construction job days" were after he was discharged from the military on disability benefits. 



> I also get no pension plan after being landlords'* bati boy *for the last 15 years.


 "Baitboy" with a dyslexic typo in there? Of course, you must mean "Batgirl"? 
..as in going to bat for your landlord baiting all the tenants. 

Well, what can we say?..if one chooses to earn a living/career in the private
sector, one can reap the rewards, in lieu of a pension offered by the employer. Unlike the military where you sign up and don't have lucrative choices without promotions, in the public sector service of Canada...
...in the private sector, you have lots of choices, and you can change career paths over to employers largeenough to have some kind of pension plan. 



> Seriously I can't refuse to rent someone an apartment when they're old go get a job *who said that at 65 years old you automatically deserve government welfare till you die. Carry your damn weight or it's the ice flo for you grand pa/ma*.


Having a bad day and peeved off at society in general? 

Spare gramps/granny that nasty thought. Maybe PM Harper is not so bad after all, at least he looks after the injured, the sick, the aged, the mentally challenged, and any others that are too frail to look after themselves! 



> Seriously if you're healthy work, if you're not healthy and can't work fine. But why 65? why not 45? or even 25? What the hell let's all take the week off and go to Mexico.


Sure. we will go..as long as it's on YOUR dime.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Yea actually if you break your knee off duty and then you go back to work before it is 100% healed you can claim a % of it as duty related if it causes permanent damage. I believe there's also a list of activities that aren't covered and I think skiing as one of them due to the high rates of injury. I'm not sure if that list was for disability or not

Also if they caught wind of him working construction they may certainly have withdrawn the payments. I have heard for example of them using Facebook posts against claims such as "Broke my knee skiing yesterday" or forum posts such as "I got a sweet disability pension for a skiing accident and still work" Of course that's why people like to stay anonymous online


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

carverman said:


> ...
> 
> This didn't bother her as much as talking to a Service Canada rep about
> her CPP application that "new rules are in the works for 2012".
> ...


There is so much rumour and misinformation in this post one doesn't know where to begin. But any rate the only thing coming in 2012 is the phasing in of increased penalties for taking CPP early, and increased benefits for taking it late. (This was first announced in a 2009 budget) Superannuation is not affected at all.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> Also if they caught wind of him working construction they may certainly have withdrawn the payments. I have heard for example of them using Facebook posts against claims such as "Broke my knee skiing yesterday" or forum posts such as* "I got a sweet disability pension for a skiing accident and still work" Of course that's why people like to stay anonymous online*


If this happened 40 or 40 years ago, "Grandpa",
was probably not on Facebook, or any of the other social networks
for that matter, and more than likely not "computer literate". 
2011 minus "40 or 50" years ago (he's 70 now?), would put that ski-ing
incident around 1951 or 1961.

Affordable personal computers back then would fill a house, (vacumn tubes
still ruled the airwaves), LSI computer chips (Intel 8080 and forerunners), had
not been developed yet, neither the internet, WIFI/Bluetooth etc, and the
rest of the neat things that one can do with it.

However back then, the military did exist, and so did ski-ing accidents.
I don't have any reason not to believe "B's" rather vitriolic post about her grandpa collecting a disability pension..when he shouldn't have been entitled to one in the first place.

I suppose, I could appoint myself "judge, prosecutor and jury", all rolled into
one. Put "grandpa" on trial now after 50 years to force him to pay pay
all monies collected from the disability pension, while working on construction,
after the doctor(s) told him to stay home to look after his seriously
injured knee.. but....
.."too much water has gone under the bridge" after 40 or 50 years.

Now morally speaking, her "grandpa" should be put on an ice flow up in the arctic for "cheating the system"


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> There is so much rumour and misinformation in this post one doesn't know where to begin. But any rate the only thing coming in 2012 is the phasing in of increased penalties for taking CPP early, and increased benefits for taking it late. (This was first announced in a 2009 budget) Superannuation is not affected at all.


Thanks for your input OHGreatGuru. Yes, I did mention that it was a rumour
and not substantiated by any factual information, (and the main reason
this post is in *general discussion and not in retirement topics*).
What I overheard from a 3rd party, is second hand information..
...so this would more than likely put it in the "BS category"..
but..
it reminds me of the old axiom.."just when I learned to play by the rules of
life..they changed the rules!"

We shall see what comes down in 2012 and beyond, for those that will
be about to collect CPP when drawing superannuation. Nothing is cast
in concrete these days.


----------



## Baccalieu (Nov 9, 2011)

carverman said:


> Thanks for your input OHGreatGuru. Yes, I did mention that it was a rumour
> and not substantiated by any factual information, (and the main reason
> this post is in *general discussion and not in retirement topics*).
> What I overheard from a 3rd party, is second hand information..
> ...


So are you saying the Forces Pension office is giving out incorrect information?

[Quote. Canadian Forces Pension Office. Date Modified: 011-11-08
The former member's annuity will not be reduced until attaining age 65 or unless upon receipt of CPP/QPP disability benefit prior age 65. It is not necessary to advise Canadian Forces Pension Services that an annuitant is receiving early CPP/QPP retirement benefits.unquote]


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Baccalieu said:


> So are you saying the Forces Pension office is giving out incorrect information?


No, I am not saying that.
But just taking early CPP at age 60, (starting in 2012) they have modified the monthly discount penalty to take out early CPP, starting in 2012 for any NEW applicants. 
Starting in 2012, you will get LESS taking out early CPP than in 2010..(not sure about 2011.)

The Harper gov't can change the rules over the next 4 years while they have a majority with no real opposition anymore, with Jack Layton gone.

Depending on how much money they need for other future commitments (superjets, superjails, corporate tax cuts, the deficit etc, they can modify the CPP rules again (if need be) for any NEW CPP applicants from 2012 onwards.

They already have included a "carrot" that if an eligible CPP applicant prefers
to wait until age 70 or 75 (and keep working paying more income tax than if
they were already retired AND making contributions to CPP)... they could get a lot more in CPP payments ..that is if they live long enough to collect it at 70-75. 

Some obviously will not make it to those "golden years", if they choose to wait to apply for it later than sooner. And the BIG bonus for the gov't is;
that if you die BEFORE you apply for CPP,you get NOTHING towards your funeral costs/estate, no matter how many years you paid into it!..not even their "generous" token $2500!

You get that only if you qualify for CPP and receiving it already.

With the new rules in effect now, if they apply early at age 60 (starting in 2012) they WILL GET LESS.

Although this doesn't affect the superannuation (YET), who's to say that in future years, it can't... if they bring in a bill to change the current laws? 

Let's face it..pensioners are a burden on the gov't in health care and pensions, if they are not working carrying their own weight and paying more taxes/CPP/EI. If not, then they are no longer contributing that much to society in retirement years. Ottawa wants the CPP scheme reformed to supplement the pensioner's other income, so further clawbacks could be a reality in the future. 


read this editorial on new CPP rules in effect

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob.../how-new-cpp-rules-affect-you/article1164379/


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I think carver the cutbacks are so that the CCP and Veteran's Affairs can be sustainable, not to fund fighter jets and jails. There were a lot of loopholes to be closed and perhaps the Veteran's Affairs weren't stringent enough on paying only for duty related injuries in the past. People can still retire early and delay taking CPP etc if they have their own savings. Retirees still pay income tax on RRSP and investment income and they open up space for young people to get a job.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> People can still retire early and delay taking CPP etc if they have their own savings. Retirees still pay income tax on RRSP and investment income and they open up space for young people to get a job.


Yes, I can't argue with your logic Mode3sour. 

Retirees, like myself do pay income tax, but I'm in the lowest tax category because my pension income has been cut by inadequate funding in the Nortel pension and I choose to take CPP early rather than wait to 65. Ok, I'm 65 now, but 5 years ago, with my health problems, I wasn't sure if I could get to 65, so I decided to take it earlier with a reduction rather than later at 65+.
(Besides, I could still draw CPP, work and earn extra income..if I wanted to.)

By my calculations from my CPP contributions over my working life, I have just about managed to recover (over the last 5 years), what I paid in from my contributions, so Harper and anyone else that comes in after him won't get the benefit of keeping my CPP contributions, to pay out to someone else.

This was in fact, my main motivation for applying for it early (at 60)..with my health problems, I certainly would not be interested in waiting until I'm 70 or 75 when I could get "more" and be taxed more as a result. Heck, I may
not be around by that time. Screw em!


----------



## Baccalieu (Nov 9, 2011)

carverman said:


> This was in fact, my main motivation for applying for it early (at 60)..with my health problems, I certainly would not be interested in waiting until I'm 70 or 75 when I could get "more" and be taxed more as a result. Heck, I may not be around by that time. Screw em!


I agree with that, and if I remember correctly age 81 or 82 is the break even point had you started collecting at age 65 vs age 60.

The possible reductions in 2012 are most likely nothing but a rumor because if there was anything to it some or all of the Ottawa Federal unions and retiree organizations would be discussing it.
Throughout my working years I met several people who would start rumors just to see how far they would go.
Rumor had 2012s CPP raise being 1% or less however that turned out to be false as its 2.8%.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

For what it's worth, Ottawa alone has no power to change the CPP rules. 

In fact, the rules for changing the CPP program are more stringent than the rules for amending the Canadian constitution. 

The CPP Amendment Act requires the agreement of the provinces, the territories and the feds - as opposed to a 2/3rds majority of the provinces representing 50% of the population + the feds (for a constitutional amendment). 

The changes being discussed in this thread were first proposed in 2009 - here's a link: http://www.fin.gc.ca/n08/data/09-051_1-eng.asp 

and are based on a report from the Chief Actuary of Canada from 2003 - here's a link: http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/oca/presentations/Speech_CIA_Victoria_e.pdf - which found that the increases/reductions were too generous/too low. 

The slides which accompany that presentation - http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/oca/presentations/AAF_Study_e.pdf - provide the detailed actuarial assumptions which underpin the increase/reduction amounts for people taking CPP late/early. 

TL,DR edition: these changes have nothing to do with Harper and were in fact announced under Chretien; and are not a product of Ottawa alone but reflect a consensus of all of the provinces, territories, the House and the Senate.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> For what it's worth, Ottawa alone has no power to change the CPP rules.
> 
> In fact, the rules for changing the CPP program are more stringent than the rules for amending the Canadian constitution.


MG, "yo da gal" when it comes to money matters ..but even if it requires an
agreement by all the provinces, an act of parliament and consent by the
senate AND perhapsm the Queen of Canada..changes are coming to the CPP in the future. 

The 2009 proposed changes are probably not going to be the last of the "proposed" changes. They will continue tinkering with it to their advantage
over the next few years as the baby boomers start retiring and deciding to
draw CPP at age 60. 

from the first link you provided....
*<online extraction quote>*
Proposed Change

•To increase the general drop-out: 
◦To 16 percent in 2012. This would allow a maximum of almost 7.5 years to be dropped.
◦To 17 percent in 2014. This would allow a maximum of 8 years to be dropped.
This change would not affect existing CPP beneficiaries or those who take their benefit before the change comes into effect. *<endquote>*

so, why are they showing a drop-out change in 2012 and then again in 2014?

What is to prevent the provinces and the current gov't from tampering with
certain provisions again in the future?

Short answer: NOTHING! "The gov't giveth and the gov't taketh away."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Advances in longevity giveth and advances in longevity taketh away. 

If you want to risk-share with the rest of the population, and you want to force everybody who works to participate in that risk-sharing with you, you better make sure the assumptions you make about how long everybody is going to live reflect the realities of population longevity. 

That's what the most recent adjustments do. Given that longevity post-65 is now rising by several months every year, I do indeed expect that future CPP payments will be adjusted to reflect those facts. 

If you want to get incised about something, you could also be upset that CPP uses unisex tables - women and men pay in the same amounts - but women, on average, get 4 more years of payments than men do.


----------



## Baccalieu (Nov 9, 2011)

> •To increase the general drop-out:
> ◦To 16 percent in 2012. This would allow a maximum of almost 7.5 years to be dropped.
> ◦To 17 percent in 2014. This would allow a maximum of 8 years to be dropped.


Thats an example of the Government giving, not taking away.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> Advances in longevity giveth and advances in longevity taketh away.


A perfect phrase for modern times, MG. 



> If you want to risk-share with the rest of the population, and you want to force everybody who works to participate in that risk-sharing with you, you better make sure the assumptions you make about how long everybody is going to live reflect the realities of population longevity.


ok ok! <Carver speaking in a Bob& Doug Mackenzie character mentality-sans
touques>
Run that by me again MG? I'm going to carve up (I like that word ) the
long statement above into shorter easier for feeble brained 65+ retirees
to understand...now...to paraphrase your statement into bite size portions...

"risk share with rest of population"
I couldn't care less about the "rest of the population. What's in it for me while I'm still warm and vertical?

"force everyone who works to participate in risk-sharing with you"
So why shouldn't working generation work, risk share, and pay more into CPP?
Their contributions to CPP help to keep the pension fund afloat, and ensure
that oldtimers draw their CPP entitlement... until death do us part...and I want my $2500 death benefit too!

"you better make sure the assumption you make"
Now that one worries me, because any assumptions can be proven wrong.

"how long everyone is going to live...etc etc" 
or is going to live is up the "BIG GUY" in the sky, and perhaps how well they, or medical science can keep them going. It's all variable, of course as
there are no "maker guarantees" in one's life..you take what you get for
as long as you can get it.

If, by some chance or bad luck, you are unfortunate to end up in a early demise due to someone's carelessness (shooting or accidental death), then all bets are off anyway. Some people are lucky and may enjoy a long life
80+, others are genetically predisposed not to be around at that age,
due to serious life threatning diseases, and in most cases medical science
can only buy them a bit of extra time, that's all. 





> That's what the most recent adjustments do. Given that longevity post-65 is now rising by several months every year, I do indeed expect that future CPP payments will be adjusted to reflect those facts.


Ah, so in your "money speak generic motherhood statement" , you are saying that future fiddling/adjustment as the population ages, is and will be possible
past 2014. 



> If you want to get incised about something, you could also be upset that CPP uses unisex tables - women and men pay in the same amounts - but women, on average, get 4 more years of payments than men do.


Where is the justice in that! That's not fair, just because men (statistically
speaking) die earlier than women. I think that men should be paid a bit more
because the insurance actuaries and other statisticians are fully aware of that.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Baccalieu said:


> Thats an example of the Government giving, not taking away.


OK,sorry my mistake. It looked like they were planning to take some more
away.


----------

