Expanded CPP, part 2

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/05/26/seize_the_day_on_the_cpp.html

" The whole notion that employers have any obligation to help ensure a decent income after work — something taken for granted a generation ago — is now in question.
... Wages for middle-income earners have been stagnant for 25 years. One third of family units have no workplace pensions or private pension assets such as RRSPs...

 Canadian Federation for Independent Business (CFIB). Setting up a PRPP is completely voluntary and a majority of employers will choose not to offer them to employees. Dan Kelly, president of the CFIB...

Kelly’s organization wants taxpayers to foot the bill for providing assistance to retirees who do not have adequate pensions. This is actually a tax subsidy to those businesses who refuse to provide pensions for their workers. Those companies are, in effect, asking people who pay taxes to give them a free lunch.          

(versus - D)

The Canadian Labour Congress advocates a gradual doubling of Canada Pension Plan benefits. We began this campaign several years ago because we were convinced that it is easily the best way to provide for retirement security... A modest increase in CPP contributions will produce thousands of dollars a year in extra benefits for workers when they retire. If we phase in a small premium increase over seven years, it would result in a future doubling of maximum benefits... 

In fact, the CPP offers every Canadian worker $2 of savings for every $1 they put in. That’s quite a deal..."

------------------

D - a few observations:

1) wages have been stagnant for '25 years' - we only noticed this now, why? (See later- rhetorical.)

2) 1/3 of families have no RRSPs (as if this is new) - look at this chart. It is complex in the details - see the per-age category breakdown. A generalized trend is hard to suss out of it.

3) CLC - 'phase in a small premium increase over seven years'...

Why now? Cuz the Boomers are retiring. The oldest at 65 started in the last 1-2 years.

Meaning later Boomers will merely be clipped by the changes.

Whereas Generation X (and Y and then Z later) will bear the brunt of it.

Our older dinner date ordered the lobster, excused themself to the bathroom, then bolted and left us with the bill. Again.

If the Boomers wanted higher benefits in retirement, then they should have asked for higher premiums. A generation ago. THIS is a sore abuse of the 'each generation picks up the next's bill' arrangement. This is cold, hard lobbying. It's selfish and manipulative. And immoral.

As it is, the Boomers only paid the new higher 10% CPP payin rate for HALF their working careers.

This is just more of the same.

The Boomers have #s (biggest demographic), organization ( CARP - now that it has shed any veneer of actually being for retirees, instead being a callous Boomer lobby group) and participation (they VOTE).

They realized that nobody can stop them. And so. They are taking it all. Everything on the banquet table, taking it with them. Leaving a few breadcrumbs on the floor for the generations that follow.

Thanks for nothing.

(The small biz and labour versions only vary in nuance - social class, career. They share the GENERATIONAL analysis - something as powerful as gender in feminism as a tool...)