I am getting real tired of Jim Flaherty,he needs to go along with Mr. Campbell

You won't get rid of Flaherty ---- remember the bogus reason for killing the Trusts? He and the financial industry are just tooo good at what they do for themselves.
It's every man for himself -- the only thing you can do is invest in the companies that will run the pension plans.

Another Harper gift to the same financial industry that precipitated the recession and then is rewarded generously to pull us out of it.
We need an enhanced Canada Pension Plan, not more gambling with our savings by corporations intent only of scooping huge fees.

Flaherty ignored the wishes of the provinces who recommended expanding the CPP.

Just like Wall Street in the US it is Bay Street (with the present government's blessings) which calls the shots in Canada.

The coffers of the Conservative Party are bulging with cash.

Guess who is coming to dinner? It ain't Sidney Poitier.

...dinner...? Flaherty might better concentrate on Food Banks [nee Bread Lines] and forget about fattening the financial larders of his fat cat privateers.

I expect you have heard it before, but it calls for repeating... “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” - Benito Mussolini

Oh well, the trains ran on time... It is too bad we do not have any trains we can call our own.

Fascism (like fog) comes on little cat feet.

...dinner...? Flaherty might better concentrate on Food Banks [nee Bread Lines] and forget about fattening the financial larders of his fat cat privateers.

I expect you have heard it before, but it calls for repeating... “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” - Benito Mussolini

Oh well, the trains ran on time... It is too bad we do not have any trains we can call our own.

Fascism (like fog) comes on little cat feet.

Good article Peter and generally speaking, I agree with what you have written.

When I first heard about the plan to do this OUTSIDE of the existing CPP structure, I thought to myself "why the heck would they do that?" and honestly, I just can't think of any compelling reason, other than what you have described.

If the true goal of this initiative is to ensure that people have more money at retirement (I'm ignoring socredible's macro analysis for the time being), then let's be honest, the government needs to mandate increased CPP contributions for employees and employers. People that have the discipline to save on their own already have various investment vehicles available to them, so why the heck would they enter into this plan especially if there are no mandated employer contributions? It makes no sense to me at all.

I say they should just expand and refine the existing CPP and be done with it. Of course, this wouldn't pander to the private sector and it would also anger business (through higher employer contributions) and employees (through higher employee contributions), but if that's what is needed, that's what should be done.

The existing structure is fine. Get some actuaries in, do the analysis and see what needs to be done.

its a bit early to rip the investment community without knowing details and costs. This sounds like something similar to a group rsp plan not a defined benifit plan like cpp. Another voluntary savings vehicle which may or may not make sense for a small company and its employees. Not everything in this world is a conspiracy people. Governments are scared silly to embark on a deeper defined benifit plan. The unfunded liabilities currently hanging over all levels of government are more than some will be able to handel now.

Seems to me that Government workers, Large Unions, and Some large Corporations have pension plans for their employees. Its the smaller business's and self employed that do not have an additonal plan. So what in effect do we have.

Say a Government worker works for forty years and retires. He would receive his Government Pension, and of course his Canada Pension based on what he paid in, and at age 65 he would receive his Old Age Pension. So in effect he has three pensions, and probably an RRSP. If his spouse was a Government worker for the same period of time she would have the same, so in effect between them they would net approx $70,000.00 per year, excluding any RRSP money.

A person working for a small business without a pension plan for forty years, would receive the Canada Pension based on what he paid in, his Old Age Pension, and any RRSP money if he paid into one. If his spouse had the same work history they would net approx $30,000.00 per year excluding RRSP.

These are pretty rough numbers, however you can see that there is a significant difference in earnings between those with a private pension, and those without.

I dont see how the Government can increase the Canada Pension for those without a Private Plan, without increasing the Pension for those who already have a plan, so I expect that having a plan run by the Insurance Companies and paid into by both the employee, and perhaps also his employer, these people could in fact get additional revenue on retirement.

The fly in the ointment of course is the fact that it is voluntary, and so is the RRSP program, so the quetion is **Will it fly**

For those people who think that this is a Harper Government, Big Business conspiracy to fleece us of our dollars, you might be right. Perhaps you could give us some specifics on how Ignatieff, and Layton would solve the problem.

Whether the Pension Plan is "public" or "private", how are the investments it makes going to continue to pay if overall Incomes continue to fall in ratio to the overall Costs of Production + profit that MUST be recovered through Prices as 'production' becomes 'consumption'? As they continue to do.

That's the REAL issue here, people. Not whether some Insurance Co. or other private Pension Plan administrator makes a profit on the services it renders.

I don't like to dwell on it, but you can NOT solve the larger problem with pensions through changing the way a Pension Plan is administered, from public to private, or vice versa.

Ideally, IF we were able to solve the REAL problem first, we would be in a perfect position to determine which method of administration generates the best results in terms of income for the pensioner. That is moral which works best.

Without solving that REAL problem first, which is 'macro-economic' in nature, and must be corrected at that level, we'll never really know. Since ultimately BOTH methods of administration will lead to continued inadequacies in regards to needed income levels for retirees.

I don't know if anyone has noticed that interest rates are the lowest they have been in most of our life times. The return on Canada Savings Bonds, GIC's, Term Deposits, Treasury Bills, and other short term investment vehicles are pathetic.

Guess what? The average rate of return for investors who have been more aggressive over the past 15 years haven't done much better than an average annual return of about 5%.

And we are wondering why we aren't meeting our retirement goals? It's not just you and me, it's everyone. Including the Canada pension Plan. From March 2008 to March 2009, the Canada pension Plan lost -18%. This is one of the most conservatively managed pension plans in the country. This is a serious issue, especially since the majority of baby boomers are nearing retirement.

Compound that with the Pension Plans that are unable to fund the commitments they made 20 years ago for defined benefit plans. They really couldn't imagine what we have all gone through since 2000.

So, this is a very serious issue that affects a lot of people. There is one exception though, those who work for government. They have an endless source of funding to make sure they can meet their obligations.

I'm not so sure what the rest of us can actually do except work harder, work longer, settle for less in retirement and hopefully you will be healthy enough and be allowed to.

Thanks for that, Chester. I believe it confirms perfectly what I've been trying to say above.

For there to be an adequate Return on Investment there has to be Consumer spending ~ from "Incomes", not just by "putting it on the plastic". Nor through other similar means of running up further Consumer debt.

But if, in our economy TAKEN AS A WHOLE, ongoing overall Consumer Incomes are continually FALLING, (through continual displacement of earned Incomes due to advancing technology and automation, outsourcing jobs abroad, etc.), IN RATIO TO the ongoing, overall "Costs of Production" continually being impressed into Consumer product Prices at the point of final retail, then "spending from Incomes" ALONE will not enable us to buy back ALL that we have produced, nor its exchange for alternate products through international 'trade'.

This is exactly what has been happening, in every modern industrial economy.

When what we are more than capable of 'producing', most often real goods and services that ARE still in actual, overall Consumer demand, but cannot SELL because "spending from Incomes" alone (taken collectively) will NOT fully liquidate the overall "Costs of Production", then the rate of business profit is constantly 'pinched off' by falling sales. And Returns on Investment become increasingly inadequate.

Many people, including our Finance Ministers, it would seem, do the perfectly natural thing and only consider the problem as it seems to affect many people individually.

They come to the conclusion that if we could only be induced to "work harder" and "save more" everything would come right.

Whatever the individual benefits of doing that may be to any of us who can go that route, it will not be found to be a solution to the overall problem.

"Working harder" implies MORE 'production'. But if we can't sell ALL we're prodcing right now, then adding to it only increses the overall glut. Even if per 'unit' costs are lowered thereby, there are still ever MORE 'units' that have to be sold, since it is the collective costs of ALL the ''units' that still has to be liquidated.

"Saving more" implies that there will be LESS Consumer spending from Incomes ~ and that only accentuates the problem of getting rid of the increased production we engendered by "working harder".

The ONLY solution to this increasing problem that could work in any economy that still enables the Consumer to be able to determine what should be produced by freely expressing through his spending choices what should, or should not, be made, is that originally advanced by "Social Credit". Not the political Party that governed us here in BC for so many years, on the whole far better than its successors, but in the original ideas, or philosophy, that the name implied. To believe we can 'solve' the Pension problem otherwise, and so many others, is simply wishful thinking, at best, while just continuing along the road to a 'financial dictatorship'.