# Canadian MP's pensions on chopping block



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Finally...the gold plated pensions that most MPs enjoy for doing practically 
nothing except attending the House of Commons on ocassion is up on
the chopping block. It's ridiculous that the taxpayers should support the
members of the public trough (read pork barrel politics) while some of us will
be facing reduced pensions and barely getting by!
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/mp-pensions-could-chopping-block-221713052.html


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Ah me puir them buggers, wonder how they will get by now 

I will believe it when I see it...I don't think the cuts, if any, will amount to anything significant at all.
More likely, there will be a shift or transfer of some sort.
Maybe creating a separate slush pension fund like some of the high earning civil "servants" have supplementary pension funds.

What is more worrying to me however is the following:

*and raise the age at which Canadians qualify for (old age security) from 65 to 67*

To me that is a more devastating change to upcoming and future retirees.
If this goes through, I suppose the next thing is to raise the age for full CPP to 67 instead of 65 as well.
And increase the early CPP penalties even more.

While all this time, the public service can continue to retire at 50 - 55 with full pensions and bridge benefits.
Nice.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> What is more worrying to me however is the following:
> 
> *and raise the age at which Canadians qualify for (old age security) from 65 to 67*
> 
> ...


Change is in the works Harold, not only will we be seeing a reduction in Medicare, but pension age limit to qualify to draw one( which most of us still qualify for), will be increased in the hopes that *most of us will die off* before
age 67 -> 70... and give the gov't a break in paying for all those retirees.... that are of no further use to the GDP. 

I remember a few years back when my mom took in her OAS form to a gov't agency to have it filled out for her
for free. The gov't clerk? as he filled it out mentions to her.."you seniors should consider yourself lucky to get a 'free" gov't pension at all..*all you do is sit around, do nothing and collect your pensions"*...

offensive a remark as it was..he did try to emphasize some factual truth to that statement...as the population ages and more and more baby boomers retire drawing on gov' t resources..the well is starting to run dry.

Perhaps they should reconsider " mass euthanasia" like in the movie with Charleton Heston 
"Soylent Green"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

Charleton Heston <running out to warn the crowd as the Soylent Green Corp truck rolls out and workers throw packages
of green crackers to the hordes with outstretched hands>..."People! Those crackers are made from People!"...
...the ultimate recycling program.


----------



## somecanuck (Dec 23, 2011)

Hold up! We cannot eliminate government defined benefit pensions and the ability to retire at 55 with a bridge CPP until at least 23-24 years from now. Also known as "after I have retired". 

On a more serious note, I've suspected that raising the age of retirement was on its way here for a bit now. If the US ever does it (maybe they have already, I don't follow much news), we'll implement it minutes after.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

carverman said:


> Change is in the works Harold, not only will we be seeing a reduction in Medicare, but pension age limit to qualify to draw one( which most of us still qualify for), will be increased in the hopes that *most of us will die off* before age 67 -> 70... and give the gov't a break in paying for all those retirees.... that are of no further use to the GDP.


Change is in the works for sure, but the direction of all those changes are detrimental to the interest of non PS retirees (current and future).
How come we don't see any changes in the interest of current and future tax payers by reducing the burden of PS pensions in the first place?

The only change that is certainly "in the works" is substantial tax increases - under various shapes, forms, and excuses.
There has to be either massive hyperinflation or punitive tax increases (or both) to fund these future liabilities.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

U.S. is already there! Normal retirement age (= age at which full social security benefits are available) is already 67 for those born in 1960 or later: 

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

When the first old age pensions were introduced, in 1889 Germany, the pensionable age was 70, not 65 - _and life expectancy in Germany at the time was under age 40_. (i.e. very very few workers survived to take old age pensions in 1880's Germany.)

If the German retirement system had added as many years to the retirement age as we added to the overall life expectancy over the past century, the official retirement age would stand at around 95 years rather than 65 years.

(Fascinating) source: http://eng.newwelfare.org/2006/02/1...ow-reflections-on-the-german-pension-problem/


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> The only change that is certainly "in the works" is substantial tax increases - under various shapes, forms, and excuses.
> There has to be either massive hyperinflation or punitive tax increases (or both) to fund these future liabilities.


Those will be coming, I'm sure as the Harper gov't is already handing out corporate tax cuts..and if the tax base starts to erode..either services will need to be cut (like the civil service already being downsized) . or they will have to find new wealth
that has been previously only lightly tapped.

Seniors with massive wealth portfolios, investments and property holdings will start to feel it eventually. They are a cash cow for the feds and provincial gov'ts. Seniors also are a big user of Medicare, so some (the ones that are well off) have to pay their own way...the unemployed and the new immigrants can't, the jobless (the kids over 25 still living at home) can't, the kids in school can't..so who does that leave to foot the bill..the seniors of course.

Confiscate all their holdings and "recycle" them.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> When the first old age pensions were introduced, in 1889 Germany, the pensionable age was 70, not 65 - _and life expectancy in Germany at the time was under age 40_. (i.e. very very few workers survived to take old age pensions in 1880's Germany.)


Und very few survived during der Fuehrer's " retirement program." If you didn't vork fer der Reichland (the 3rd Reich) you vas considered lazy und an undesirable Cherman citizen of der Fatherland. 
The infirm vere "taken care of" first..they were loaded into portable gas vagons und driven around until
"they gave up" and agreed to become goot "fertilizer" for der fatherland.
Everbody vorked..because the alternative was..vell..you know vat I mean!



> If the German retirement system had added as many years to the retirement age as we added to the overall life expectancy over the past century, the official retirement age would stand at around 95 years rather than 65 years.


Vat is wrong vith dat? Retirement should be only ven you can no longer see, or do things vith your hands...at that point you are useless and should be"retired" to... a_ nice state run retirement home vith goot food und entertainment and lots of morphine injections to kill the pain and s*peed you*_* on yur vay to Valhalla*.

Dis freeloading has to stop! Vork or starve..just like other creatures of the forest!


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

carverman said:


> Those will be coming, I'm sure as the Harper gov't is already handing out corporate tax cuts..and if the tax base starts to erode..either services will need to be cut (like the civil service already being downsized) .


I don't think it's happening yet.
Civil service is _not_ being downsized - don't buy all that hype.
In fact, during the ~ 5 years of Harper govt. the federal civil service has been expanded at an unprecedented rate.
Perhaps only the expansion of the Ontario provincial service matches the current rate of federal PS expansion.

What _is_ happening though are service cuts - deep and everywhere.
And increased taxation - at all levels.
The only counter action that I have seen in the last few years is the introduction of the TFSA and the pension/RRIF income splitting.
But those are but small changes against the onslaught of other forms of taxation and the general expansion of the public sector.

Note that every marginal expansion of the civil sector gets magnified 5 - 6 times more because of the over generous benefits and pensions.

There is unprecedented expansion at the political level as well, with new MP seats and new senate seats.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Where's the Godwin's Law smilie?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The PCs cut the GST and lowered corporate tax rates...........and now want to fund it with cuts to seniors?

I am thinking they might want to "focus group" that one.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Hey, why do we need MPs, anyway? Seems we could save $300 million by replacing them with a system where each party leader gets a number of votes in the House in accordance with how many ridings their party comes first in. If one has a majority, then the rest can all just stay home. You could also get rid of the prime downtown Ottawa real estate--probably another few hundred million that could be saved there, too.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> Where's the Godwin's Law smilie?


I don't think carver let's any reference to Germany pass without alluding to Hitler or Nazism.

Would the smiley have a Charlie Chaplin moustache?


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Reducing MPs benefits is definitely filed under 'believe it when we see it'. As for the rest of us - it's a done deal and only going to get worse.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> Where's the Godwin's Law smilie?


Good observation MG.
<quote>
Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, _the law is now often applied to any threaded online discussion, such as forums,_ chat rooms and blog comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.
<end quote>










Ach de lieber!, mein Freulien (MG)...I nitsche include it, because I nein find
Hitler icon smiley vit der out
stretched salute at initial posting of der reference to Chermany's
"generous retirement laws"..but now..ve vill include das smiley.
Heil!!!!








Deutsland! Deutsland uber alles


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I don't think carver let's any reference to Germany pass without alluding to Hitler or Nazism.
> 
> *Would the smiley have a Charlie Chaplin moustache?*



Not only a CC moustache but a outstretched hand with the Nazi salute! 










I vas born in Chermany in 1946..almost a year after our beloved fuehrer
decided to end it all after bring total ruin to our fatherland. The rise and
fall of the 3rd Reich, it's economic implications as well as it's horrors of
a totalitarian regime bent on the destruction of other nations is a lesson
for history that we should never forget......however..der fuehrer did
give us the "Hilter vagon"..aka Volksvagen (the peoples car),und der
Porsche, und BMW and Mercedes Benz...

like Blues singer Janis Joplin once sang.."oh Lord, won't you buy me
a Mercedes Benz"..

Why is that?..not a Ford, Chrysler, GM or Toyota?.hmmmmm???? (Ve hav vays to make you talk!)


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> The PCs cut the GST and lowered corporate tax rates...........and now want to fund it with cuts to seniors?
> 
> I am thinking they might want to "focus group" that one.


GST cuts affects everyone..so does corporate tax cuts.

Seniors are a specific group that is increasing in size and the Harper gov't
wants to target and tap it because..lets face it..they are the only ones
that are not deeply in debt (by overspending their incomes) and seniors
have a vast of untapped wealth sitting in banks/investment firms and
properties...so..Herr Harper vill investigate the possibility of reducing their
gov't handouts, so they have to live off their savings.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Hey, why do we need MPs, anyway? Seems we could *save $300 million by replacing them with a system where each party leader gets a number of votes in the House in accordance with how many ridings their party comes first in*._ If one has a majority, then the rest can all just stay home_. You could also get rid of the prime downtown Ottawa real estate--probably another few hundred million that could be saved there, too.


Excellent idea..the parliament buildings are just a show place where everyone
who is elected MP just goes to sleep there, doodle or argue about things
that are obvious and about to be implemented by a majority gov't regardless
of what the MP thinks or says. The IGNORE factor is now in effect.

I think the parliament buildings should be sold and dismantled (as souvenirs of Canada of a bygone era),
and the expensive downtown real estate (parliament hill) would make a good luxury residence for all
the seniors that are sitting on tons of cash....just worrying about their financial
futures night and day.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> The PCs cut the GST and lowered corporate tax rates...........and now want to fund it with cuts to seniors?


The GST cut benefits everyone, as carverman said above.

If 2% of the GST cut today is equal to 2 extra years of wait to claim OAS, I'm ok with that trade off.
In fact, I am willing to trade another 2 years for another 2% GST cut.
Hey, wait a sec...can I trade 5 years for the remaining 5% of the GST?
How about we set the min. OAS age to 70 and get rid of the GST completely, if that's what the equation is.

Also, I don't think there is any specific plan to screw only the seniors.
I think the plan is the screw - above all - the current and future tax payers - no age bias, please - everyone gets screwed equally.

I don't think it is fair to say the GST cut is responsible for the cuts to seniors.
It would be equally correct to say the fighter jets deal is responsible for the cuts to seniors. Or the jails, perhaps.
In fact, I'd say it won't be wrong to equate the outrageous pensions of the politicians to the cuts for seniors.

How about we cut the pensions and benefits of the politicians, reduce the # of MPs, reduce the # of senators and some of the other outrageous perks our politicians get (like their big fat expense accounts) in lieu of the cuts to seniors.

We might just be able to eliminate the GST as well.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> We might just be able to eliminate the GST as well.


What about getting rid of Herr Harper?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

carverman said:


> What about getting rid of Herr Harper?


And replace with who?

If you are volunteering for the job, I'll be happy to vote for you if you promise to cut the size of the public bureaucracy by at least 30%


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> ...
> How come we don't see any changes in the interest of current and future tax payers by reducing the burden of PS pensions in the first place?
> 
> ...


Ah yes, the government should solve its fiscal problems by simply defaulting on its financial commitments, just like the private sector routinely does.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Harold C..........

You are right of course. 

Any number of their financial decisions could be attributable to the present state of affairs the PCs find themselves in.

I was just dusting off the Loyal Opposition's headline advertising for the next election................


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In any event, it appears the topic of changing MP pensions, was started by an article by the CD Howe Institute.

It is one of a long list of wishful thinking articles by an organization out of touch with reality.

MPs aren't going to vote themselves out of a pension.........not even Conservative MPs.

Their loyalty falls somewhat short of self mutilation.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Ah yes, the government should solve its fiscal problems by simply defaulting on its financial commitments


No, no, I wasn't suggesting they should default on existing long term commitments.
But they can (and IMO should) take steps towards modifying the collective bargaining agreements moving forward that have made this possible in the first place.
Just like many viable successful companies in the private sector have been doing.

However, having said that, defaulting on pension commitments is exactly what is sweeping all across Europe, and not just in basket case economies like Greece.
If the current, and future, administrations are not careful, it won't be too long before that monster swims across the Atlantic.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Ah yes, the government should solve its fiscal problems by simply defaulting on its financial commitments, just like the private sector routinely does.


Well apparently in some depts, the gov't has already started reducing it's financial commitments in the future. 

It appears that in the public service (Service Canada), the younger civil servants will not be receiving a gov't superannuation pension in the future. 

A friend of mine, who's son is a low level manager in Service Canada, has been notified of this. 
The gov't is acturizing? his pension lump sum and setting it up to transfer to him to invest in some kind of RRSP
to look after, in his own retirement fund. 
So it is starting to happen..the feds are shedding future pension obligations..which may not be sustainable under
the present economic situation.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> In any event, it appears the topic of changing MP pensions, was started by an article by the CD Howe Institute.
> 
> It is one of a long list of wishful thinking articles by an organization out of touch with reality.
> 
> ...


Good point..in order to pass any laws for changes..the MPs have to vote on it. However..what happens to the abstainers on the PC side, if Harper takes a count of who voted against his changes..in this case a REDUCTION, not elimination of
the MP's gov't pension? 

The first thing would be is that he kicks some of them out of his cabinet. If enough vote Nay, then at that point the gov't
is defeated on a Non Confidence vote..and another election starts..yawn!...

Unfortunately, at this time, the loyal opposition does not have a strong leader to take over the reins as of yet. the temp leader is not of the same calibre as Jack Layton, which most politicians on the hill regarded with a lot of respect.


----------



## Miser (Apr 24, 2011)

The Goofy award on Money Talks this week was MP pensions.
For every dollar they contribute tax payers pay 24.
The intrest rate we pay on their money is 10.4%, a number they just picked out of the sky.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

carverman said:


> Well apparently in some depts, the gov't has already started reducing it's financial commitments in the future.
> 
> It appears that in the public service (Service Canada), the younger civil servants will not be receiving a gov't superannuation pension in the future.
> 
> ...


I think you are getting a garbled story from your friend. The government has not (yet) changed the Superannuation Act.

If he resigns or is laid off before 50 or 60, one of the options he has (instead of waiting for a deferred annuity) is to take a pension transfer amount and put it in a LIRA. But this is nothing new.


----------

