http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/24/flaherty-pensions.html
Concerns over the adequacy of the current pension system have been growing in recent years. About two-thirds of Canadians are not covered by company pension plans. Surveys also suggest that about a third of Canadian families have no retirement savings at all and many others worry that they're not saving enough.
Last week, an analysis by the C.D. Howe Institute said most Canadians underestimate the amount they need to save for retirement. Its study said people need to save between 10 and 21 per cent of their pre-tax income for 35 years to get a retirement income at age 65 that would provide 70 per cent of their pre-retirement income.
While the Canada Pension Plan is actuarially sound for the next 75 years, the program is designed to replace just 25 per cent of the average working wage. It pays maximum retirement benefits of $934 a month.
Some, like the NDP, have suggested that the CPP system be beefed up to provide benefits that would approximate 50 per cent of the average working wage. That would require higher mandatory contributions.
-----
D: the NDP are not thinking intergenerationally.
Their position should be seen as pandering to the Boomers.
It is too late for the Boomers to significantly cover their own costs, if the pension plan is dramatically altered as the near retirement. They already got a break with the initial low pay-in rate prior to the last-decade 9.9% reform.
Don't tolerate bandying about of the word 'fair' by CARP.
This is intergenerational conflict. Fair is the opposite of reality!
Here's an idea: since Gen XYZ are subsidizing the too-low payin of Boomers for the first half the Boomers' working life,
1) introduce the expanded coverage and rate reforms supported by the NDP
2) but not for Boomers
3) hell, not even for Gen X or Y
4) Gen Z, if they pay-in at an increased rate for their whole working career, can qualify for that.
THAT is fair.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Day suggests reducing public pension benefits in future
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/day-hints-at-two-tiered-federal-pensions/article1508555/
"We've been clear. We're not reducing existing pension benefits," he said as he marched toward a staircase and declined any further clarification.
The insertion of the word "existing" was enough for union and opposition critics to conclude that new hires may be offered a lesser pension plan.
Committee member and NDP MP Paul Dewar, who represents an urban Ottawa riding that is home to many public servants, said the minister's use of the word "existing" was no mistake.
"They've got to be clear about what their intentions are," he said. "When he says 'existing' benefits and pensions, he's using that word for a reason.
-----
D: public sector good benefits in pensions have been used in private sector debates.
To some people, it's not 'fair' that public pensions are in part funded by the tax base.
Well, that is true of public sector everything.
My roomie works in the public sector. He's been a desk monkey for a university computer store for over a decade.
He makes less in boom years, when the private sector is booming and head-hunting.
But he works steadily through the years of famine too.
You get something, you lose something.
We need to watch rhetoric on 'gold plated' public pensions.
Somehow it is used to argue for expanded coverage in the private sector.
Since the CPP plan is not exactly swimming in surplus, this move should be shrewdly viewed as a generational issue.
Just add the words "for Baby Boomers only" and see if the statement still seems coherent.
Good test.
"We've been clear. We're not reducing existing pension benefits," he said as he marched toward a staircase and declined any further clarification.
The insertion of the word "existing" was enough for union and opposition critics to conclude that new hires may be offered a lesser pension plan.
Committee member and NDP MP Paul Dewar, who represents an urban Ottawa riding that is home to many public servants, said the minister's use of the word "existing" was no mistake.
"They've got to be clear about what their intentions are," he said. "When he says 'existing' benefits and pensions, he's using that word for a reason.
-----
D: public sector good benefits in pensions have been used in private sector debates.
To some people, it's not 'fair' that public pensions are in part funded by the tax base.
Well, that is true of public sector everything.
My roomie works in the public sector. He's been a desk monkey for a university computer store for over a decade.
He makes less in boom years, when the private sector is booming and head-hunting.
But he works steadily through the years of famine too.
You get something, you lose something.
We need to watch rhetoric on 'gold plated' public pensions.
Somehow it is used to argue for expanded coverage in the private sector.
Since the CPP plan is not exactly swimming in surplus, this move should be shrewdly viewed as a generational issue.
Just add the words "for Baby Boomers only" and see if the statement still seems coherent.
Good test.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
a nice summary of the various generations
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/car-tips/its-covered/talking-bout-my-generations-rates/article1502153/
D: the article is actually about car insurance rates.
------
Generation Y (born 1977-1991): The Internet generation, they learned to drive before they ever got behind the wheel of the car – via video games, of course. The centre of their parents' universe, these high-maintenance kids have been groomed for success. Voted most likely to have their own car before the age of 18.
Generation X (born 1965-1976): Generation X has sometimes been described as disaffected, directionless, lacking passion and drive. This group grew up during a period of the dot.com boom, combined with reduced expectations of long term relationships between employer and employee.
Baby Boomers (1943-1964): This generation thinks the world revolves around them, and for the most part, they're right. They command the most attention from marketers, media and politicians. Clinging to their youth, this group has been voted most likely to sport a bumper sticker saying, "Just Like You ... Only Richer & Smarter." As a group they're the healthiest and wealthiest.
The Silent Generation (1925– 1942): This generation of hardworking people focused on getting things done and advancing their careers. Yet, they've been called withdrawn, cautious and unadventurous.
The Greatest Generation (1911-1924): This generation had the Second World War and spent the ensuing years rebuilding their lives. These men and women have no problem fighting for what they believe in.
----
D: The pre-Boomers did manage to luck into a pension plan without paying for it.
And benefited from many other social programs too.
However, I have difficulty holding that against them. They did collectively defeat fascism, after all.
Plus they are not that numerous.
D: I was talking to a contractor inspector yesterday at work. He pointed out the impact of recent CPP changes.
The payoff for early retirement was reduced, plus the payoff for later retirement was increased.
I think from 5 to 7% difference in each cash. Some formula based on # of months before/after age 65.
Anyway, let's say this deters somebody from retiring at 65. Let's say by 3 years.
Well, not only is that 3 years more payin. It is also 3 years LESS payout. The retiree stills dies at the same time.
So at the same time as this reform makes retiring at, say, age 65 impractical, it in turn contributes to pension plan viability.
A whole lot of people don't have the personal savings to retire at their desired standard of living.
http://www.mercer.com/summary.htm?siteLanguage=100&idContent=1351770
D: a list of recommended CPP changes.
Prior to 2007, it was required that a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) be converted to a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF) by the end of the year in which the owner turned 69. The 2007 Federal budget revised this age to 71, for both RRSPs and RPPs. RRIF owners are required to withdraw a minimum amount each year, starting the year after the RRIF is established. This requirement is waived, and there is no minimum withdrawal in the following circumstances:
for 2007, for RRIF owners who turn 71 in 2007, and
for 2007 and 2008, for RRIF owners who turn 70 in 2007.
There is no advantage gained by converting your RRSP to a RRIF before age 65.
----
D: same incentive, I think.
D: these look like quiet reforms that basically admit that the CPP plan maybe is not as solvent as they let on.
After all, if everything is fine, then why all these little changes, introduced without much fanfare?
D: the article is actually about car insurance rates.
------
Generation Y (born 1977-1991): The Internet generation, they learned to drive before they ever got behind the wheel of the car – via video games, of course. The centre of their parents' universe, these high-maintenance kids have been groomed for success. Voted most likely to have their own car before the age of 18.
Generation X (born 1965-1976): Generation X has sometimes been described as disaffected, directionless, lacking passion and drive. This group grew up during a period of the dot.com boom, combined with reduced expectations of long term relationships between employer and employee.
Baby Boomers (1943-1964): This generation thinks the world revolves around them, and for the most part, they're right. They command the most attention from marketers, media and politicians. Clinging to their youth, this group has been voted most likely to sport a bumper sticker saying, "Just Like You ... Only Richer & Smarter." As a group they're the healthiest and wealthiest.
The Silent Generation (1925– 1942): This generation of hardworking people focused on getting things done and advancing their careers. Yet, they've been called withdrawn, cautious and unadventurous.
The Greatest Generation (1911-1924): This generation had the Second World War and spent the ensuing years rebuilding their lives. These men and women have no problem fighting for what they believe in.
----
D: The pre-Boomers did manage to luck into a pension plan without paying for it.
And benefited from many other social programs too.
However, I have difficulty holding that against them. They did collectively defeat fascism, after all.
Plus they are not that numerous.
D: I was talking to a contractor inspector yesterday at work. He pointed out the impact of recent CPP changes.
The payoff for early retirement was reduced, plus the payoff for later retirement was increased.
I think from 5 to 7% difference in each cash. Some formula based on # of months before/after age 65.
Anyway, let's say this deters somebody from retiring at 65. Let's say by 3 years.
Well, not only is that 3 years more payin. It is also 3 years LESS payout. The retiree stills dies at the same time.
So at the same time as this reform makes retiring at, say, age 65 impractical, it in turn contributes to pension plan viability.
A whole lot of people don't have the personal savings to retire at their desired standard of living.
http://www.mercer.com/summary.htm?siteLanguage=100&idContent=1351770
D: a list of recommended CPP changes.
Prior to 2007, it was required that a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) be converted to a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF) by the end of the year in which the owner turned 69. The 2007 Federal budget revised this age to 71, for both RRSPs and RPPs. RRIF owners are required to withdraw a minimum amount each year, starting the year after the RRIF is established. This requirement is waived, and there is no minimum withdrawal in the following circumstances:
for 2007, for RRIF owners who turn 71 in 2007, and
for 2007 and 2008, for RRIF owners who turn 70 in 2007.
There is no advantage gained by converting your RRSP to a RRIF before age 65.
----
D: same incentive, I think.
D: these look like quiet reforms that basically admit that the CPP plan maybe is not as solvent as they let on.
After all, if everything is fine, then why all these little changes, introduced without much fanfare?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
are today's youth 'ego driven slackers'?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100315104030.htm
ScienceDaily (Mar. 16, 2010) — Today's youth are generally not the self-centered, antisocial slackers that previous research has made them out to be, according to a provocative new study co-authored by a Michigan State University psychologist.
"We concluded that, more often than not, kids these days are about the same as they were back in the mid-1970s," said Donnellan, associate professor of psychology.
In other findings:
Today's youth are more cynical and less trusting of institutions than previous generations. But Donnellan said this is generally true of the broader population.
The current generation is less fearful of social problems such as race relations, hunger, poverty and energy shortages.
Today's youth have higher educational expectations.
Ultimately, Donnellan said, it's common for older generations to paint youth in a negative light -- as lazy and self-absorbed, for example -- which can perpetuate stereotypes. It can be easy, he added, to forget what it's like to grow up.
----
D: in other news, Harper introduced a bill regarding young offenders.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-say-protection-of-society-should-be-goal-of-youth-justice/article1502155/
D: superficially, this appears to be the usual 'incapacitate versus rehabilitate' debate.
But look closer.
Mr. Nicholson says that would include a “casual attitude to the law [and] complete lack of empathy for the victim.”
The proposed changes would also permit sentencing judges to take into account evidence of previous brushes with the law that did not result in charges or convictions.
D: guilty until proven innocent? Or just always guilty - and next time, we'll ding you for it?
D: a nation with a mixed bag of laws that include a whole lotta vice crimes can expect a "casual attitude".
Every time a vice crime is made a crime, (arbitrarily) half of the people will believe that it should not be a crime.
Pot - weed - comes to mind. But so could, Idunno, prostitution or some types of porn. And gun control - the right has its 'vice crime' peeves too. If only they realized how much they resemble their opposition on the left. Even to the point of using the same rhetoric as them - but only in reference to their particular bugbear.
If we as a nation use a criminalization/imprison approach to only moderate harmful behaviors instead of a more moderate regulation/fine approach, then we can expect this casual attitude.
I'd argue a casual attitude is the most sensible one.
My mother had to admit that a lifetime cohort study found those that try weed were MORE, not LESS successful. They were free thinkers who were willing to question accepted wisdom.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a U grad who has not tried it, at least not many.
D: Notice a connection above? The two separate news items. One contains "cynical of institutions", the other "a casual attitude towards the law". It is the same damn thing!
My blog is gonna argue that being cynical of institutions is not only a supportable position, but also the most reasonable one.
D.
ScienceDaily (Mar. 16, 2010) — Today's youth are generally not the self-centered, antisocial slackers that previous research has made them out to be, according to a provocative new study co-authored by a Michigan State University psychologist.
"We concluded that, more often than not, kids these days are about the same as they were back in the mid-1970s," said Donnellan, associate professor of psychology.
In other findings:
Today's youth are more cynical and less trusting of institutions than previous generations. But Donnellan said this is generally true of the broader population.
The current generation is less fearful of social problems such as race relations, hunger, poverty and energy shortages.
Today's youth have higher educational expectations.
Ultimately, Donnellan said, it's common for older generations to paint youth in a negative light -- as lazy and self-absorbed, for example -- which can perpetuate stereotypes. It can be easy, he added, to forget what it's like to grow up.
----
D: in other news, Harper introduced a bill regarding young offenders.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-say-protection-of-society-should-be-goal-of-youth-justice/article1502155/
D: superficially, this appears to be the usual 'incapacitate versus rehabilitate' debate.
But look closer.
Mr. Nicholson says that would include a “casual attitude to the law [and] complete lack of empathy for the victim.”
The proposed changes would also permit sentencing judges to take into account evidence of previous brushes with the law that did not result in charges or convictions.
D: guilty until proven innocent? Or just always guilty - and next time, we'll ding you for it?
D: a nation with a mixed bag of laws that include a whole lotta vice crimes can expect a "casual attitude".
Every time a vice crime is made a crime, (arbitrarily) half of the people will believe that it should not be a crime.
Pot - weed - comes to mind. But so could, Idunno, prostitution or some types of porn. And gun control - the right has its 'vice crime' peeves too. If only they realized how much they resemble their opposition on the left. Even to the point of using the same rhetoric as them - but only in reference to their particular bugbear.
If we as a nation use a criminalization/imprison approach to only moderate harmful behaviors instead of a more moderate regulation/fine approach, then we can expect this casual attitude.
I'd argue a casual attitude is the most sensible one.
My mother had to admit that a lifetime cohort study found those that try weed were MORE, not LESS successful. They were free thinkers who were willing to question accepted wisdom.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a U grad who has not tried it, at least not many.
D: Notice a connection above? The two separate news items. One contains "cynical of institutions", the other "a casual attitude towards the law". It is the same damn thing!
My blog is gonna argue that being cynical of institutions is not only a supportable position, but also the most reasonable one.
D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)