en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/610251 Comments by joannie1 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/26/downsized-dreams/#IDComment41015565 Putting pension fund at the front of the line is a good idea, but not a solution. Pensions are becoming scarce in the private sector and have exploded in the public sector. Lets end the lunacy now. The infrastructure is in place under the Canada Pension Plan to turn it into a foundation for everyones retirement. Increase the payout to $2,000 per month and let people save outside of CPP to improve their retirements. Taxpayers no longer want to be on the hook for lavish government employee retirement benefits, pensions and freedom 55. Taxpayers do not want to be on the hook for Chrysler and GM pensions. Lets take everybody off the hook for things they don't have. 65 to 70% of the Canadian workforce has no organized pension Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:58:13 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/26/downsized-dreams/#IDComment41015565 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/26/how-do-you-feel-about-the-federal-conservatives-tough-on-crime-agenda/#IDComment40784031 The money would have been better spent educating the public that crime has been falling since we revamped the criminal justice system back in the 70's. Vengence is a filthy emotion, and we should not encourage it. Eventually all but the worst of criminals will be back on the street. It is better for society if rehabilitation is the goal. Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:44:45 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/26/how-do-you-feel-about-the-federal-conservatives-tough-on-crime-agenda/#IDComment40784031 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/15/thinking-about-the-old-ignatieff/#IDComment39133332 Thank you Mr. Steyn, Mr. Levant, and Macleans magazine for speaking on this issue. I couldn't agree with you more! I read a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin and I think it applies to a number of issues. "Those that would sacrifice liberty for safety don't deserve liberty". It would be refreshing to hear from a politician that doesn't sound like he's been scripted by polsters. Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:17:30 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/15/thinking-about-the-old-ignatieff/#IDComment39133332 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment39131789 If the defined benefit plan was changed to a defined contribution plan there would be no deficits or need for hocus/pokus expensive actuarial reports every five years. The payout would be based on how much is in the plan on retirement, which is as it should be. I don't think you will find any sympathy in the private sector for your plight. Average wages in the public sector are 10% higher than in the private. This number balloon to 15 to 40% higher when the benefits are added. I suggest everyone write their representatives at all three levels of government and tell them that we are no longer going to vote for any government that bestows benefits to public service employees that are not widely available in the private sector and ask the taxpayer to fund them. We need to ask ourselves what benefits are we willing to pay on behalf of all working people. Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:48:17 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment39131789 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment39104202 Please start referring to the employers as the taxpayer and remember that 70% of the contributions to this plan are made by the taxpayer on your behalf. The deficit is being paid by the taxpayer. Stop bean counting and think about whether or not it's fair to ask me to pay for 70% of the cost of your pension. I will put $4400 this year into the CPP (I'm classed independent contractor) and whats the current payout at retirement $519/month. Your extended health care benefit including dental continues in retirement and is paid for by the taxpayer. My extended health in my 50's is costing me $220/month and it's not as generous as yours. It's unheard of in the private sector to get extended health care benefits in retirement. I can't imagine what the cost would be for someone over the age of 65. How much do the retirees pay for this benefit $10 to $15 per month. Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:43:32 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment39104202 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment39103060 I used to feel that government existed for the people--I now feel that we exist to service them. Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:27:29 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment39103060 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment39102813 How can you possibly justify your position as a loss for retirees. We the employer are making about a 70% contribution to your pension. Average public service retirement age had fallen to 58 by 2006. The average value of income package in the federal public service is over 40% higher than the average income for the same job in the private sector. This is primarily due to the pension plan and benefits. Do you dispute the Macleans article that showed 2 couples making identical contributions to a defined benefit, versus a defined contribution plan. The defined contribution ended up with around $220,000 at retirement and the defined benefit ended with $1,200,000 benefit. Please stop defending your entitlement to your entitlements and advocate for a decent retirement for everyone. That's the purpose of my posts. Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:23:54 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment39102813 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment39101292 The $10.1 Billion I was referring to was in the Ontario Provincial Plan. You seem to forget that the employer is the taxpayer!! How many of the 80% of us that are not privy to these pensions want to pay for them--What about our retirement! When your employer pays 50% of your unemployment insurance do you consider that your money or the employers. Let me assure you employers think it's a payroll tax and they pay it. So now we have an even greater deficit to pay in the Federal Defined Benefit Pension Plan. I've never heard you suggest that all everyone should have a decent pension and that's what I've been advocating for. Instead you defend the rest of us contributing to yours and the rest of us contribute 70% to yours. Yes, folks the employees contribution to their cushy pension has never been more than 38% paid by the employee. Why are you defending your position without a hoot of care for the rest of us? Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:02:23 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment39101292 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38985245 I can live with that explanation. However, it also means that the value government pay packages in this country are 25 to 40% higher than the private sector. I suspect this is because they aren't spending their own money. Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:52:11 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38985245 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38984763 Again I refer to the Macleans study where they took two couples with identical contributions over an identical period of time. The defined benefit pension plan paid out over 5x the amount of money. The reason being the defined benefit plan isn't based on the amount of money in the plan, it's based on an average of top 5 earning years. Turn the defined benefit into a defined contribution plan and you will very quickly see the difference. Name one private sector company that has started a defined benefit pension plan in the last 30-40 years. There's a reason. These plans worked when life expectancy was 70 and retirement age was still 65. With freedom 58 and a life expectancy of 80+ they don't. Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:46:13 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38984763 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38984006 It's impossible to do a proper actuarial study on defined benefit plans because the payout has nothing to do with the amount of money in the plan. Hence, we the taxpayer are constantly topping up the plans. They are much like a pyramid scheme and require constant growth from the bottom to pay out the top. Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:36:19 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38984006 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38983568 I haven't suggested a race to the bottom. I' ve suggested a race for the top where everyone gets a decent pension. Do you have a problem with that? Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:29:56 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38983568 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment38983062 Only about 20% of so called private companies have pension plans. Many of these companies are quasi government that can build the cost into the cost of their product as pricing is regulated by the government. The rest are old industrial age companies such as GM/Chrysler whose pension we just bailed out. Too many of these old companies have gone bankrupt over these pensions Stelco, Air Canada etc., Inco etc. In Ontario we have $10.1 billion in the last budget going to top up shortfalls in government sponsored defined benefit plans years 2008-2011. You presume wrong about the equalization through more money in private sector pay packages. The reports mentioned above illustrate this. There is a prolifigation of companies going to part time employees, or contract workers to avoid paying benefits. The government is encouraging private sector workes to work until 70 for a 6% increase in CPP. Meanwhile as of 2006 the average age of retirement in the public sector, at 60 to 70% of income and full extended health care for life, had fallen to 58. Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:23:06 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment38983062 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment38980285 First, the CFIB report "Wage Watch" 2006 does a pretty good job of direct job/job comparison. Macleans also did an article a few months ago using a two fictitious couples and a direct comparison. Each made identical contributions to a pension plan, one of which was a defined benefit., over a lifetime. The difference on retirement was astronomical, amounting to over 5x the return. Second, there is no direct corrrelation between the amount of money contributed to a defined benefit plan and the payout. It's based on number of years worked and an average of the top five earning years. Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:09:04 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment38980285 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38945794 I've got a better idea. One that's gaining tremendous support. I live in Ontario where 2/3rd of the workforce has no organized pension plan. In Canada 20% of the workforce has 80% of the defined benefit pension plans in this country. Guess who the 20% are. Right--government employees. The taxpayer is paying half the contributions to these plans and is responsible for 100% of funding shortfalls. The cost is horrendous. Lets turn the CPP into a plan that provides decent coverage for all Canadian Workers maybe in the neighborhood of $2000/month and let individuals save for their own retirement over and above. I don't want to fund government employee plans any longer or bail out anymore private company pension plans. I have my own retirement to plan for--I can't fund both. Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:21:34 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38945794 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38848893 I suggested that benefits paid to civil service workers should be paid to all workers. Afterall it's the tax dollars of all workers that are paying the benefits of civil service workers. For instance, in Ontario I think it's highly inappropriate that every time a service is delisted from health care it's added right on to the civil service extended health care benefit plan that the taxpayer is paying for! Go to the CFIB wage watch and you will find that between wages and benefits there is a growing gap between private sector and public sector compensation 25 to 40%. If this gap exists in a private sector company it's none of my business--when the taxpayer is the employer it is everyones business. Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:17:58 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38848893 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38742209 All levels of government offer very generous employee benefits. I think this is a problem. These benefits are paid for by taxpayers (mostly employees) who are not privy to the same benefits. I think governments should have to mandate the same benefits to all canadians that they offer to employees. Are we creating an elitist group--those who worked for the government? Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:48:50 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-top-100-2009/#IDComment38742209 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment38726736 I think it's a major problem that the government is offering extremely generous benefits to their employees. These benefits are paid for by taxpayers, mostly employees, who are not privy to these benefits. I think when the government offers benefits to public sector employees they should automatically be offered to the population at large. Afterall, they're doing it with our money. Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:25:11 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/the-war-for-workers/#IDComment38726736 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/03/problems-in-the-natural-health-products-aisle/#IDComment37240798 Can we let the individual make some decisions. If a product makes false claims they can be taken to task through existing legislation and asked to prove their claims. How much government do we want? Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:13:42 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/03/problems-in-the-natural-health-products-aisle/#IDComment37240798 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/27/hung-out-to-dry-2/#IDComment36415149 Asking the taxpayer to protect the "defined benefit pension plans" of government employees and private companies is inappropriate. 2/3rds of the workforce in Ontario have no organized pension plan. A better solution would be to work within the Canada Pension Plan to provide a decent pension for everyone, and beyond that put any additional pension savings into the hands of individuals. Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:19:00 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/27/hung-out-to-dry-2/#IDComment36415149