Why not just raise the CPP contribution rates for all employees to match the rates that public servants pay into their plans (CPP combined with their pension contributions)? Oh that's right, 95% of the employees out there would have a heart attack if they saw what that would cost them, LOL :)

If you think public pension plans are fully funded by the employees than you have no idea. They are legacy costs passed down to the next generation of tax payers and are in no way fully funded. 2011 will be the year where you see municipalities and states in teh US start to claim bankruptcy because of these legacy costs... the domino effect will not pass Canada by... we will have to follow to stay competitive... no way the next generation can pay these legacy costs and still fund the services they will require like education, and health care... times are about to change.

The biggest thing the government could do for the private sector is make it so pensions have priority in bankruptcies... but this would mean crossing with the bankster pay masters that make party policy and ensure the banks are first in line in any bankruptcies from the companies that they harvest.

Yo

http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.com/2010/12/christy-clark-spins-and-lies-on-her.html

The whole idea of a pension plan is that the money collected will be invested and the retirees will live off the returns on those investments. They are not difficult to set-up actuarily; and adjust, if the life-expectancy and other draws increase, and the contribution rates have to be raised. The same principles are used by all other forms of insurance, and by banking itself.

I believe the big problem now, and the one the Finance Ministers aren't revealing to us, is that the rate of return on the investments is dropping. The Pension Plan is in danger of having to start "living" off its CAPITAL, and not its INCOME. And that is certainly not sustainable, over any extended term.

This is what we should expect in any economy where, collectively, personal incomes are falling in ratio to the overall costs of production continually being impressed into the prices of goods and services charged at the point of final retail.

The reason personal incomes, taken collectively, are falling, is because of ongoing 'labour displacement' due to advancing technology, and now, increasingly, outsourcing production to 'sweat-shop' foreign countries.

What this means is that present'incomes' alone can not fully liquidate the 'costs of production' in each successive cycle of production. Increasing amounts of debt must make up the difference, while it can. And with debt levels in Canada up to
$ 1.40 owed for every buck of disposable income received, that's just what's been happening.

Most Canadians still access their incomes either solely, or largely, through 'employment'. Only a small per centage of overall incomes are distributed profits, i.e. dividends.

Indeed, I believe that the number of dividend paying, publicly traded companies has declined steadily over the years, and also the size of dividends paid.

Further indication that, in spite of the way we often rail about "corporate profits", it's more than likely that if we were to look at the corporate sector as a whole, their 'profits' are continually eroding. And with that erosion, the ability of pension plans like CPP to achieve the necessary returns on investment necessary to pay appropriate pensions.

The solution won't be found by raising rates. In fact, that'll make the overall situation worse instead of better. Every dollar paid into the Plan is a dollar that's already been 'costed' into some product. Taking more in CPP from those who have to consume that product ~ you and me, and everyone else ~ and at least at the full cost of its making, if it's maker is to remain in business, simply reduces everyone's immediate purchasing power that much further. And increases the overall debt load we'll all have to bear, for in able for that product to now be sold, someone is going to have to go into debt to buy it.

"If you think public pension plans are fully funded by the employees than you have no idea"

I never said they were. Obviously they are also partially funded by employer (government) contributions as well. Much like CPP, it doesn't really matter what is in the plan, the government will continue to cut the cheques, sort of like with EI as well. Besides, it's almost impossible to even figure out if such plans are "sustainable" because every time there is a big surplus in the plan assets, governments of the day will raid the plan and use much of the funds for other purposes, like paying down overall government debts, etc. Governments see these plans as one more bank account that they can use whenever they like, so there isn't much point in debating whether they can be sustainable since they aren't managed like they need to be.

Socredible said that the situation can't be found by raising rates, however, I tend to disagree from at least one point of view. If people would invest more of their money on their own investments and future needs (instead of truck payments, buying snowmobiles, going to Mexico, etc.), perhaps there wouldn't be such a great amount of pressure in regards to the problems of not having any money left at retirement. Saving has gone the way of the dodo bird and it has been replaced by spending.

There has to be some balance in the whole equation. When you look at their RRSP contributions, CPP contributions and pension plan contributions, many of the public servants I know are "investing" WELL over 10% of their annual gross income on savings plans and 2 of those 3 are forced savings plans. How many people in the private sector deal with that? I suspect not that many, oftentimes because their employers could care less about the long term security of their employees.

You'd have the same problem with the 'investment' of savings as with the CPP contributions I outlined above NMG. The money 'invested' has already been "costed" into some previous production, somewhere in the economy.

Simple 'savings', i.e., an abstention from 'spending' without 'investment', also has that effect.

With the signifigant difference that the 'investment' of savings creates ANOTHER set of "costs", (same as any Bank loan does, when it's spent for productive purposes by the borrower ~ i.e, to produce a financial return, not buy things for personal consumption, I mean).

While it's investment has also left an existing set of "costs" equal to itself still unliquidated. And unliquidatable, save for a further expansion of debt.

I'm having a really hard time following your example socredible, however, I am 100% certain that I'll have more money available to live off of in 30 years if I invest 20K a year making 4%, than if I invest 5K a year making 4% and spend the additional 15K a year on fishing equipment, video games and vacations. No?

Is this a Political Story. Can we continue to comment on it, if we dont agree with the Provincial Governments position???

Thats it. I'm so done with this site. The best thing about it was the comments you could make. Sure some folks said things that weren't appropriate but that is the greatest thing about free society. We can say what we want without fear of reprisal from the 'authorities'

I'll get my news elsewhere.

Yes, that's true, NMG. In regards to the way the situation applies to you, considered as an individual. "Micro-economically", if you want to describe it technically.

But if you take everyone together in the whole economy, "macro-economically", in other words, and we ALL did what you've described, what seems so sensible 'individually' , it changes. It's not the same, you just can't extrapolate what's true in individual circumstances to ALL individuals taken collectively.

That's what the politicians are proposing to do, and it won't solve the problem with pensions. Or anything else. It has to be corrected "macro-economically", and that won't be done by having everyone save more and invest it.

I am happy with Ben's decision to exclude commenting on stories that directly address political parties.
Some of the comments that have been made on this site are completely unacceptable in terms of libel, foul language and etiquette. Hiding behind a user name and publishing crap is childish and cowardly. Ben has to act like a father figure to adults who should know better than to act like jerks. No, we don't live in a "free society" that we can publish whatever random, crazy, thoughtless comments we want. There are LIMITS for everything.
Some of you folks need to search out some positive things you can do in your spare time.

A more logical solution would be to start moderating the comments.

I can well understand the difficulty for Opinion 250 in having to monitor comments that are made behind a screen name, for which they, and not the commentator, could be held liable. They walk a tightrope of sorts, in a media format such as this. Moderating comments in the volume received would be a difficult, if not impossible, task.

It's unfortunate that we live in a society where it's necessary for many of us to hide behind a screen name when expressing our honest opinions.

We should be able to be openly held responsible for what we say if our comments are libelous, and the object of them feels harmed to the point of seeking redress. 'Freedom' without 'responsibility' is an illusion.
But that's not exactly what attends in the actual society in which we now live.

Rather it's one where many of us could easily be subjected to 'economic' reprisals by political people in a position to make life very much more difficult for us, by being singled out for expressing a public opinion on them and/or their policies, if they knew who we were. Views they do not want anyone to hear or consider.

There are well documented cases of such reprisals being used to try to silence opponents in many other countries when they get a little too close to the embarassing truth.

Tapes from the Nixon era in the USA reveal how that administation used various government agencies to lean on vocal opponents. And there are many other instances recorded where this has happened elsewhere.

In fact, it was suggested earlier this year by some on the pro-HST side that those who put their names on the Petition were opening themselves up for this type of pressure. I'm sure those comments have been made again, only now directed at those who might sign a Recall petition.

That they could be audited, for income tax, say; or their business might find suddenly find a WCB safety inspector around, finding all manner of supposed violations; or that they might 'technically' be in the position of not following some Regulation exactly as it's written, and the government's enforcer is now choosing to interpret.

Few of us would have the time or financial resources to respond to such harrassment.

In an ideal society such reprisals couldn't happen, because the ability to exert pressure 'economically' on us, by people in positions of power, would be neutered. We don't live in an ideal society. So we use screen names. Lets try to use them responsibly.

Logical and practical are not synonymous.

I believe the CPP is a government program. Any government program is political in that politicians and political parties will have opinions about those programs.

I think the problem becomes that some people in the general population cannot talk about the issues because they simply do not understand the details of the issues and thus have to go for the personal attacks.

Then again, politicians seem to have the same problem when they enter the parliamentary chambers and sit opposite of each other. While sitting in those seats, far too much of their "debate" is not about the issues, but about the mentally challenged members opposite.

Screen names ..... I find it interesting that people on Facebook tend not to use screen names. I think that site reveals a lot more about some people than this site ever will.

One issue I don't see addressed is it doesn't matter how much money we save or put into the CPP. If there are no people to provide the services seniors needed, it won't matter how much money they have. We have an inverted population pyramid. The fewer are not going to want to look after the growing aged population base. We at some time are going to be compelled to look at immigration to solve our low birthrate problem. This will result in a change in Canada's culture and demographics. Chances are 20 years from now this country will look nothing like it does today, which is why I tend to be a more eat drink for tomorrow we may die guy.

I think Ben has gone to great lengths for several years to permit free expression of opinions. What has it got him? The need to apologise, presumably under threat of a libel action, that's what. Interestingly, the original commenter also apologised and his name was included as part of that apology http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/18711/1/opinion250+apologizes?id=143&st=50.

Just because we have screen names does not mean that we will remain anonymous. A simple court order will get our names easily. Presuming that you will always remain anonymous and can get away with libelling someone because you can't be identified is nonsense.

"Just because we have screen names does not mean that we will remain anonymous. A simple court order will get our names easily"

Not all that easily for those who really are vigilant about such things. In fact, I would say impossible for those who take some care in building an anonymous trail.

BTW, I have not done that and many, including Ben, know who belongs to this pen name.

Remember Lewis Carroll, Paul French, Richard Bachman and others ... :-)

Opinions? Only difference is I don't get paid for mine. I'm not "credentialed" enuff. Just another unwashed "proletariat". That's me. And thee. Look it up.

Proletariat:- the ones the "dictatorship of" is really the "dictatorship over".