Trudeau's virtue signalling

[Northern Light]

I don't think the goal should have been higher current benefits, but rather ensuring we have a better chance of meeting obligations future (darn, dyslexia again).

That doesn't make sense. Every analysis shows that CPP is actuarially sound.

The requirement is that it managed to be sound to a point 75 years into the future. It meets those tests and exceeding minimum required returns every year. Its actually in surplus.

In respect of OAS/GIS that's somewhat different in that these are paid from general revenues each year as opposed to a segregated fund.

But the growth projections don't look too outrageous, yet.

We need to be clear though. Benefits are too low.

If you are retiree w/no other means to support yourself, and you've been in the country for 40 years (post your 18th B-day) and otherwise max out your benefits, you can only access about $1,700 per month right now.

In my building that would not pay your rent in a 1bdrm w/hydro and parking.

No money for food, no money for clothes, no money for dental, no money to buy the grandkids something at Christmas.

The minimum level of benefits needs to be higher.

But it can and should be funded by raising the minimum age of receiving benefits; excepting those w/disabilities that prevent work.

That should also be paired by reducing people's stress in life and upping the minimum level of paid vacation, to three weeks immediately and 4 weeks within a few years, as most of the developed world.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Because these are not real refugees, they're economic migrants, like my family was - except we did it the legal way.

This whole episode is angering legal immigrants (who happen to be almost all immigrants) and risks backfiring on Trudeau and his band of sycophants.

$200 headphones, fancy jackets, electronics? These guys don't look like they escaped a warzone with the clothes on their back.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. My parents came as refugees in the 80s and were carrying an antique gold-plated silverware set from Germany that was worth quite a bit more than 200$ headphones and some nice threads. People escape with pricey shit. It's nothing new.

I get what your issue is but you're bringing up completely irrelevant points.

 

[buildup]

That doesn't make sense. Every analysis shows that CPP is actuarially sound.

The requirement is that it managed to be sound to a point 75 years into the future. It meets those tests and exceeding minimum required returns every year. Its actually in surplus.

In respect of OAS/GIS that's somewhat different in that these are paid from general revenues each year as opposed to a segregated fund.

But the growth projections don't look too outrageous, yet.

We need to be clear though. Benefits are too low.

If you are retiree w/no other means to support yourself, and you've been in the country for 40 years (post your 18th B-day) and otherwise max out your benefits, you can only access about $1,700 per month right now.

In my building that would not pay your rent in a 1bdrm w/hydro and parking.

No money for food, no money for clothes, no money for dental, no money to buy the grandkids something at Christmas.

The minimum level of benefits needs to be higher.

But it can and should be funded by raising the minimum age of receiving benefits; excepting those w/disabilities that prevent work.

That should also be paired by reducing people's stress in life and upping the minimum level of paid vacation, to three weeks immediately and 4 weeks within a few years, as most of the developed world.

What doesn't make sense are your actuarial assumptions. Let's assume CPP growth assumptions aren't optimistic as is usually the case, in which case its claims of being well funded are doubtful. My main point is that even a 5% increase over current benefits would throw the funded status way out of wack.

Also, CPP is also funded as it goes, young workers are paying the benefits of retirees. I dont think its fair to have younger people support people who never got around to building a nest egg. The first national pension system was under Bismark and it coincided with average life expectancy. CPP isn't supposed to finance a 30 year retirement!

MacDonalds needs workers, retirees should put in some hours rather than try and collect more than they put into PPC. Sorry if you're taking it on the chin here.

 

[Northern Light]

What doesn't make sense are your actuarial assumptions. Let's assume CPP growth assumptions aren't optimistic as is usually the case, in which case its claims of being well funded are doubtful. My main point is that even a 5% increase over current benefits would throw the funded status way out of wack.

Also, CPP is also funded as it goes, young workers are paying the benefits of retirees. I dont think its fair to have younger people support people who never got around to building a nest egg. The first national pension system was under Bismark and it coincided with average life expectancy. CPP isn't supposed to finance a 30 year retirement!

MacDonalds needs workers, retirees should put in some hours rather than try and collect more than they put into PPC. Sorry if you're taking it on the chin here.

First off, CPP is third-party audited w/published figures, every single year. There is no reason to doubt their numbers.

Second, a 5% increase in benefits FINANCED by raising the minimum age of receiving benefits keeps everything actuarially sound.

Third, yes Bismarck's system was really cheap; that is not a sound reason for ours to be.

A reasonable idea is to keep the ratio of working years to retired years fairly constant.

When Canada first chose '65' the average life expectancy was 76. It was designed to finance up to 11 years of retirement, on average.

Today, life expectancy is 81.

If you consider 44 working years to 11 retired years, a 4:1 ratio, and you maintain that over time, you get a retirement age of 69, (48 working years, 12 retirement years), but only once life expectancy reaches 82.

We're not there yet.

Age 68 is reasonable, and fiscally responsible, given the surpluses in CPP.

I dont think its fair to have younger people support people who never got around to building a nest egg.

You know what the problem w/this argument is.........?

I don't have kids, should I pay to the cost of education for those who do?

Oh, wait a minute, I've already been to school, and it was free, to me, so maybe I'm paying back the state when I cover the cost for someone else.

CPP, works that way in reverse, you do realize someone is going to pay for you, right?

PS, if you are telling me most Canadians can save enough for retirement privately, I'm going to be mean and laugh you out of the room.

The CPP was created because most people could not and would not save that kind of money on their own.

If your poor, there's simply not extra money.

If your middle class, there are always other needs and priorities to balance (kids university tuition, or money for your retirement.......)

Further, you know if your nest egg is in an RRSP or a TFSA that its subsidized right? That your receiving preferential tax treatment.

The same is true if you bought a home, since your principle residence can go up in value w/o you paying capital gains tax.

A renter doesn't get that $500,000 waiver, which saves maybe $250,000 in tax.

 

[buildup]

I don't have kids either, but I still don't want some 30 year-old smuck who can't even afford a house paying for my retirement. People in their 50s-60s definitely had their chance to buy a house if they bothered. If not, their mistake. If they did its a valuable asset now. When I hear Canadians saying they were never able to save anything for retirement, its a lie. They never tried. Talk to any Chinese or Indian immigrant and try to tell them its impossible to save in Canada. They will laugh you out of your designer jeans and Gucci glasses.

Also, all Financial Statements are audited, most use aggressive assumptions. It's simply a fact.

Not sure where you're getting your working year ratios from. Most kids in their 20s are gig, cash workers. Semi-serious work nowadays starts around 28. If they work non-break to age 68, its 40 years if work. And if you are alive at age 68, your life expectancy is nearly 88. 2:1 ratio at best.

 

[Filip]

Not sure what that has to do with anything. My parents came as refugees in the 80s and were carrying an antique gold-plated silverware set from Germany that was worth quite a bit more than 200$ headphones and some nice threads. People escape with pricey shit. It's nothing new.

I get what your issue is but you're bringing up completely irrelevant points.

I think you know the difference between family heirlooms and disposable materialism.

 

[SunriseChampion]

I don't have kids either, but I still don't want some 30 year-old smuck who can't even afford a house paying for my retirement.

Excellent! I shall notify the CRA first thing tomorrow that they are to immediately return half of my pension contributions of the last 15 years and that I am henceforth entitled to a discounted rate of contribution!

Though, I'm already 33.

Wait, that's even worse! Even more of a shmuck! I suppose that means you don't want someone like me contributing to your health care costs.

Excellent! I shall post an addendum to my letter to the CRA that shall state that I require half my previous contributions to healthcare to be immediately reimbursed and that all future contributions shall be at a discounted rate.

Man, you're the best. Of course, I'll need your endorsement on my correspondence. Email?

 

[Northern Light]

I don't have kids either, but I still don't want some 30 year-old smuck who can't even afford a house paying for my retirement. People in their 50s-60s definitely had their chance to buy a house if they bothered. If not, their mistake. If they did its a valuable asset now. When I hear Canadians saying they were never able to save anything for retirement, its a lie. They never tried. Talk to any Chinese or Indian immigrant and try to tell them its impossible to save in Canada. They will laugh you out of your designer jeans and Gucci glasses.

Also, all Financial Statements are audited, most use aggressive assumptions. It's simply a fact.

Not sure where you're getting your working year ratios from. Most kids in their 20s are gig, cash workers. Semi-serious work nowadays starts around 28. If they work non-break to age 68, its 40 years if work. And if you are alive at age 68, your life expectancy is nearly 88. 2:1 ratio at best.

I've been nicer to you than just about anyone here, but you are really taxing my patience.

My facts are flawless.

They always are.

You're not right.

No one will say that you are.

I don't post guesses; and if I offer opinions or preferences I make as much clear.

Your assumptions on working ages and ratios are simply out to lunch, there's nothing else I can say; you're one step removed from flat-earthing.

 

[SunriseChampion]

I think you know the difference between family heirlooms and disposable materialism.

I'm not sure that is a family heirloom....I think it was a gift.

Anyway, the point is, material possessions don't really tell very much of a story. I've seen homeless dudes in Toronto with better parkas than I have....doesn't mean they're not homeless.

 

[SunriseChampion]

...you're one step removed from flat-earthing.

Ease up....that's highly offensive to anyone with half a brain.

 

[buildup]

I've been nicer to you than just about anyone here, but you are really taxing my patience.

My facts are flawless.

They always are.

You're not right.

No one will say that you are.

I don't post guesses; and if I offer opinions or preferences I make as much clear.

Your assumptions on working ages and ratios are simply out to lunch, there's nothing else I can say; you're one step removed from flat-earthing.

You do take yourself rather seriously unless you're being ironic? If I'm 'taxing your patience' please be merciful when you render justice.

Cut and pasting Wikipedia doesn't make your 'facts' flawless. And you don't understand actuarial science. As people age, life expectancy also extends. If life expectancy is 81, as you say; that would not apply to someone who has already reached 67. Your 4:1 ratio is closer to 2:1.

If you're getting hosed having to pay school fees for kids you don't have, you are also saved the effort of raising the kids, kids who provide your services in restaurants and pay your CPP. If I was 30 I'd resent supporting old farts who didn't contribute enough to CPP, are living too long, and will leave behind a huge national debt.

 

[Northern Light]

You do take yourself rather seriously unless you're being ironic? If I'm 'taxing your patience' please be merciful when you render justice.

Cut and pasting Wikipedia doesn't make your 'facts' flawless. And you don't understand actuarial science. As people age, life expectancy also extends. If life expectancy is 81, as you say; that would not apply to someone who has already reached 67. Your 4:1 ratio is closer to 2:1.

If you're getting hosed having to pay school fees for kids you don't have, you are also saved the effort of raising the kids, kids who provide your services in restaurants and pay your CPP. If I was 30 I'd resent supporting old farts who didn't contribute enough to CPP, are living too long, and will leave behind a huge national debt.

You're not making sense.

Before you go further, though my career path has diverged vastly since, and this was never an academic area of study..........the first job I was recruited to out of university was in the Insurance industry......I was promoted three times in the first 2 years.

I have a very clear understanding of actuarial science. One of the best in fact.

You clearly don't understand how things work in CPP or actuarial science.

Sure someone who makes it to 70 has a higher chance of living to greater than the average life expectancy.

So what?

That doesn't matter to the actuary. What matters is the average.

Put another way, for every person living above the average there is someone living below it (not literally, but on average, LOL)

People who die before 65 all contribute to CPP.

They never collect.

That fully offsets those who live longer.

That's how it works.

Now, at this point, I will not entertain this discussion further. You are entitled to whatever preferences you wish; but not your own facts.

 

[buildup]

Ok, that was a fairly good response. You're a bit insufferable, but have the chops to back it up.
Since you're not going anywhere and absolutely will entertain this further let me ask you a question. If the CPP is so well funded, why didn't Harper increase the benefits after pushing out the retirement age? He's a mean guy, but that mean?
I'll give you time on this one, since you're one of the best.

You are going to answer me because you just can't help it. Like a moth to flame. It might take time, But you will.

 

[buildup]

Excellent! I shall notify the CRA first thing tomorrow that they are to immediately return half of my pension contributions of the last 15 years and that I am henceforth entitled to a discounted rate of contribution!

Though, I'm already 33.

Wait, that's even worse! Even more of a shmuck! I suppose that means you don't want someone like me contributing to your health care costs.

Excellent! I shall post an addendum to my letter to the CRA that shall state that I require half my previous contributions to healthcare to be immediately reimbursed and that all future contributions shall be at a discounted rate.

Man, you're the best. Of course, I'll need your endorsement on my correspondence. Email?

I would provide a reference but your Avatar scares the crap out of me. Are you some kind of heavy metal or goth anarchist, or antifa?

 

[buildup]

....the first job I was recruited to out of university was in the Insurance industry......I was promoted three times in the first 2 years.

Were the last 42 years of your career as good as the first 2?