Jump to navigation
I posted this in another thread this morning-- kind of on the same topic:
"May is out to lunch. Interestingly she is taking a position that is fundamentally anti-environment. Here is why: When you fail to secure your population and provide social justice then the only way they will try to find security is by inflating the size of the economy-- finding what they cannot achieve through equality through growth which destroys the environment. (The idea is if we allow excess for some and more, more and more then even the poorest will have enough.) The "raising the tide lifts all boats" argument is also about perpetual growth rather than social justice. This is of course the fundamental weakness in May's environmentalism and why her party is a failure intellectually not understanding that social justice and environmental sustainability are mutually dependent -- only the NDP understands this and May displays her ignorance here for all to see. A proper pension is nothing more or less than a measure for social and effectively environmental sustainability.
"I like May as a spunky individual but this is in a nut-shell why I would never, ever, ever support her politically. You have to get these relationships and she unfortunately does not. And for the most part neither does her party."
A very good point, Sean.
In a 'pay as you go' pension system, (which the CPP is) and as 'boomers' begin to retire in droves, wouldn't increased premiums be a burden on the diminishing workforce (mostly younger workers) who'll have no assurance that money will be there for their retirement? Isn't this simply 'kicking the can down the road'? Where's the social justice in that? We've witnessed the same dynamic with defined benefit plans in the automotive industry, for example-- who'll pay for that boondoggle?). Besides, who'll pay the tab for everything else the 'boomers' will demand, i.e.: increased medical needs, for instance, as the post-war 'me generation', cohort ages, and puts greater stress on an increasingly inadequate heathcare system (looked for a chronic care facility, lately?).
As younger workers, with fewer prosects for good-paying jobs, (and with the additional prospect of increased tax burdens) begin to feel 'screwed', the smart ones may simply opt to do what many of their parents and grandparents once did: emigrate. Could you blame them?
CPP has actually been put on a much more sound actuarial footing now, according to nearly all observers of whatever other political stripe. The issue is that it was only ever supposed to cover a small portion of retirement income, with the expectation that most people would have employer-sponsored pension plans in addition to the CPP and OAS/GIS.
Employer-sponsored and private pension plans have much higher costs, and less reliable returns, because they cover fewer people and have higher administrative and management fees (that go to investment brokers, etc.). Plus, most businesses can't afford defined benefit plans anymore, and are getting out of the pension business altogether, and/or just making contributions to their employees' RRSPs.
By doubling the CPP premiums over 10 years, and phasing in a doubling of benefits for new retirees over the same period, the CPP will do a much better job for everyone, at a lower cost and with a safer nest-egg.
This will SAVE money to small businesses, in the same way that public healthcare saves them money ... one more employee benefit they don't have to cover the cost of administering directly themselves (plus, small business owners have never had their own pensions beyond CPP and RRSPs anyways).
It will save society money as well, because seniors with insufficient retirement income will need welfare, unless you advocate having them starve, and/or wind up in hospitals.
Yes, CPP premiums will increase over time, but a lot of employers are now making RRSP contributions for their employees in lieu of a real pension plan. The amount of money that gets leeched off those accounts in management fees, and RRSP admin fees is a huge tax on their real rates of return. Employers will be able to ditch the employee RRSP contribs, and still ensure their employees get a decent pension, at an overall much lower cost to them and to society.
John Fryer knows all this perfectly well, as the former President of NUPGE. I challenge him to denounce this appalling and outrageously regressive policy of his candidate in Saanich-Gulf Islands.
Good point about John Fryer.
He only says something about May and the campaign these days when he can stick to good news. Be interestingif....
Closing, long thread.