18 replies to this topic

[mrlupin]

Politically, it will be interesting to see how the main voting pool(namely the baby boomers) react to pension and old age security attacks.

Harper hints at pension reform,

In Davos, PM sets stage for 'major transformations' and deficit slashing

Prime Minister Stephen Harper signalled his government will bring forward "major transformations" in the coming months - in areas such as the retirement pension system, immigration, science and technology investment and the energy sector.
Of those reforms, Harper said, getting a grip on slowing the rising costs of the country's pension system is particularly critical.
In the wake of Harper's speech, it now appears the Conservative government could be poised to gradually change the Old Age Security system so that the age of eligibility is raised to 67 from 65.
The opposition NDP and Liberals said that such a move would financially cripple millions of Canadians. They argued that at a time when world leaders are talking about addressing income inequality, the prime minister's words indicated the opposite may happen in Canada.
Harper made the revelations in a major keynote speech Thursday at the World Economic Forum, the annual gathering of the world's political and business elite.
As expected, the prime minister was critical of Europe and the United States for not adequately dealing with the economic problems that have gripped them in recent months and years.
But it was Harper's assessment of the major changes that lie ahead for Canada that stood out in the speech.
"In the months to come, our government will undertake major transformations to position Canada for growth over the next generation," Harper said.
The Conservatives will table a budget in the coming weeks that is expected to set the stage for years of deficit-slashing and government reform.
"Under our government, Canada will make the transformations necessary to sustain economic growth, job creation and prosperity now and for the next generation," Harper said.
He said that means two things: "Making better economic choices now. And preparing ourselves now for the demographic pressures the Canadian economy faces."
Harper said the country's demographics - an aging population and a dwindling workforce - constitute "a threat to the social programs and services that Canadians cherish."
For that reason, he said his government will "be taking measures in the coming months."
Harper did not specify what those measures will be, but he said they are necessary - not just to bring the government's finances back to a balanced budget in the medium term, "but also to ensure the sustainability of our social programs and fiscal position over the next generation."
"We have already taken steps to limit the growth of our health-care spending over that period," Harper said. "We must do the same for our retirement income system."
Harper said the centrepiece of the public pension system - the Canada Pension Plan - is fully funded, actuarially sound and does not need to be changed.
But he added: "For those elements of the system that are not funded, we will make the changes necessary to ensure sustainability for the next generation while not affecting current recipients."
So far, the government has come forward with a plan to create a private pooled pension system to encourage Canadians to prepare for their retirement.

Still, there are concerns that as baby boomers approach retirement, the cost to government of providing public pensions will skyrocket.
In December, the National Post reported that there was internal debate within the government about increasing the age of eligibility for the other major element of the public pension scheme - Old Age Security - to 67 from 65.
Internal government documents project the cost of the OAS system will climb from $36.5 billion in 2010 to $48 billion in 2015. By 2030 - when the number of seniors is expected to climb to 9.3 million from 4.7 million now - the cost of the program could reach $108 billion.
NDP finance critic Peter Julian, speaking to reporters in Ottawa, called Harper's speech "ominous words because we don't have any details yet."
Julian said the NDP wants to see the government increase spending on the OAS by $700 million per year, which the NDP says would make the system sustainable, rather than tell seniors they have to work for two more years before they can retire.
"That's completely unacceptable. If he had run on that platform last May, he wouldn't have the numbers he has in the House he has today," Julian said.
The NDP and the Liberals said that increasing funding to the OAS could be financed by reining in spending on prisons and the F-35 fighter jet, which could cost anywhere between $16 billion and $30 billion, depending on who you ask.
"If he's serious about the demographic shift, he should listen to evidence and invest in hospital beds, not prison beds," Liberal critic Scott Brison said.
Brison said the government should make tax credits refundable for those in the lowest income brackets to help address income inequality in Canada.
"It would be a very regressive step to cut or restrict OAS at a time when income inequality is a growing issue," Brison told Postmedia News.
"Harper isn't addressing income inequality. He's proposing changes that would make it worse."
The challenge to the government will now be selling whatever changes it plans to the pension system, something that has dogged previous prime ministers, said Errol Mendes, a politics expert from the University of Ottawa.
Brian Mulroney, months into his mandate, controversially decided to de-index pensions. After a senior confronted him, Mulroney backed away from the plan.
"I bet you (Harper) won't talk about the OAS over here because there will be pictures of that woman saying 'Goodbye Charlie' to Brian Mulroney," said Mendes, referring to the famous 1986 encounter.
Harper issued a scathing criticism of countries in the developed world, which he suggested had forgotten about the importance of creating economic growth.
He suggested that developed countries had taken wealth "as a given ... assuming it is somehow the natural order of things."
As a result, he said, countries in the Western world had become focused primarily "on our services and entitlements."
As a result, he said, it's not surprising that, in addition to banks facing debt, countries themselves are also facing sovereign debt crises.
Harper warned that the wealth of Western economies "is no more inevitable than the poverty of emerging ones."
He said the problems afflicting Europe and the U.S. threaten to become even more serious in future.
"Each nation has a choice to make. Western nations, in particular, face a choice of whether to create the conditions for growth and prosperity, or to risk long-term economic decline."
The solution, he said, is for countries to make the sometimes tough, but correct, decisions now.
"Easy choices now mean fewer choices later."
Read more: http://www.montrealg...l#ixzz1keYPWhXe

Edited by mrlupin, 27 January 2012 - 02:35 AM.

[mrlupin]

Also of interest on the pension front. A recent CIBC Poll.

CIBC says older Canadians “Punch Drunk” on Debt

http://research.cibc...oad/eijan12.pdf

[Moon The Loon]

Wonder how that will all impact us "older" Canadians who are debt-free

[st27]

Want to make my retirement a lot easier??? Just refund my EI contributions that I luckily never had to draw on..it was a fund for my unemployment right??? Correct me if  i am wrong [probably] but didn't Chretien change the fund accounting rules so that the previous amounts went into general revenues,helping him "balance" the budget.This is billions of dollars and they are upping the contributions again!!!

[J.O.]

st27, on 27 January 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

Correct me if  i am wrong [probably] but didn't Chretien change the fund accounting rules so that the previous amounts went into general revenues,helping him "balance" the budget.This is billions of dollars and they are upping the contributions again!!!

Just like the $30 billion + he and Martin pulled out of the public service employees' contributions to their pension.

[malcolm]

Interesting, at least to me, facts about the CPP

Quote

An excellent point about retirement age


‎Today, ‎February ‎01, ‎2012, ‏‎3 hours ago | Brigitte Pellerinres://ieframe.dll/feedarrowtrans.png

My friend Jason Clemens has an oped, here, about the current Old Age Security hoopla. The whole thing is worth reading, but here’s the point that really got my attention.

The rumoured change in OAS is that the age of eligibility will be increased to 67 over an extended time period, perhaps ten years. This is actually quite timid. Consider that when the Canada Pension Plan was introduced (1966), life expectancy was 72 years (combined male-female life expectancy), implying a benefit period of 7 years. Life expectancy now stands at 81, implying a benefit period of 16 years or more than double the original period. Put another way, the age of eligibility would be 74 years today if the original threshold had been indexed to life expectancy.

You know, the point of this whole pension thing was never to give people 20-odd years of carefree retirement living. It was to make sure vulnerable folks didn’t spend their last couple of years in abject poverty. If 20-odd years of golfing is what you want for your retirement, I suggest you start saving your own money, and lots of it.

http://blogs.canoe.c...onthehill/feed/

[dagger]

It's debatable whether this pension reform of Harper makes any sense. Sure, Canadians will rejoice at the reductions in MP pensions, and the OAS changes won't hit current retires or those due to retire soon. But why the reform?

The OECD suggests Canada is well-positionned to ride out the benefits bulge without changing the OAS system. One suspects Harper wants the latitude to begin pushing top tax rates down. Most of what he does comes right out of the Republican playbook, so I suspect another shoe will drop soon.

http://www.theglobea...article2320279/

We already have lower corporate taxes (but where is the evidence they actually benefit the economy, I continue to see companies leaving Canada because they get upfront incentives or can consolidate in a low-wage jurisdiction. The EMD lockout in London by Caterpillar is a classic show of that - Caterpillar profits are at record levels, US corporate taxes are higher than ours, but US wage rates are lower. But if that's the primary draw, lower wage rates, then why lower corporate taxes especially at a time when the budget is in deficit and we're borrowing money to cover it.)

The pattern is clear to me: water down pensions gradually, water down health care gradually... next shoe... reward the rich with big tax cuts - it's right out of the Republican playbook, govern for the 1%, not the 99%

Now reforming EI would be a different thing, since it's basically a welfare system for certain parts of the country... but the Tories won't touch that.



http://www.theglobea...article2320279/

Edited by dagger, 01 February 2012 - 07:23 AM.

[deicer]

dagger, on 01 February 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

It's debatable whether this pension reform of Harper makes any sense. Sure, Canadians will rejoice at the reductions in MP pensions, and the OAS changes won't hit current retires or those due to retire soon. But why the reform?

The OECD suggests Canada is well-positionned to ride out the benefits bulge without changing the OAS system. One suspects Harper wants the latitude to begin pushing top tax rates down. Most of what he does comes right out of the Republican playbook, so I suspect another shoe will drop soon.

http://www.theglobea...article2320279/

We already have lower corporate taxes (but where is the evidence they actually benefit the economy, I continue to see companies leaving Canada because they get upfront incentives or can consolidate in a low-wage jurisdiction. The EMD lockout in London by Caterpillar is a classic show of that - Caterpillar profits are at record levels, US corporate taxes are higher than ours, but US wage rates are lower. But if that's the primary draw, lower wage rates, then why lower corporate taxes especially at a time when the budget is in deficit and we're borrowing money to cover it.)

The pattern is clear to me: water down pensions gradually, water down health care gradually... next shoe... reward the rich with big tax cuts - it's right out of the Republican playbook, govern for the 1%, not the 99%

Now reforming EI would be a different thing, since it's basically a welfare system for certain parts of the country... but the Tories won't touch that.



http://www.theglobea...article2320279/

Good Morning Dagger

After reading your post, all I can put as a comment is.....

'Welcome to the Dark Side'

Iceman

[Don Hudson]

Let us recognize Stephen Harper's vision of "Canada" for what it is. Where and when have we ever heard Stephen Harper speak passionately about his vision for the country, Canada?

By "Canada", I mean of course Canadian corporations and the now-visible wealthy class, the existence of whom the Canadian population have only recently awakened and who have just as recently been popularly described as "the 1%".

We don't hear such things because Mr. Harper envisions Canada as a "company", not a nation or a people. His is a pedantic and instrumental vision of practicality, bereft of imagination and inspiration that comes from leading a country.

I believe we will see the first signs of fundamental change when Mr. Flaherty brings in his first budget under a majority government. Mr. Harper reserves for himself and his majority government a statist and moral authority which is going to change the essential character of Canada as we know our country.

The kind of "reform" Mr. Harper envisions and which we will see for the first time on budget day has been in the works since Reagan-Thatcher...since the early '70's. It just took Canada thirty years to see the class advantages to a Neoliberal economy and to arrange their government according to a neocon (neoliberal and neocon are almost interchangeable), methods and priorities which were established in the U.S. by the corporate-friendly Congress decades ago. T

he U.S. population is paying the price today for the kind of thinking that germinated in Chicago School economics and Milton Friedman, again, decades ago. De-regulation is for the few not for the many. Privatization and de-regulation is as much about establishing private profit for the few while mandating the socialization of risk as it is about "cheaper airfares". Under a neoliberal political economy, the now-visible 1% have their cake and are gorging themselves in legalized larceny. It is a peculiarity of U.S. political economy that this is not only acceptable but encouraged by the original vision of the U.S. of the founding fathers, (except Jefferson).

I hope I am mistaken but I am concerned that this vision is crossing the border.

I say this because the Canada the baby boomers grew up in and who held an idea of "Canada" as a kind, polite, gentle world leader automatically imbued with integrity, (mostly by those who don't really know Canada), is slowly being supplanted by corporatist, neocon priorities, relegating the majority to the same place our friends in the U.S. have been put by private, unelected, corporate tyrannies who range throught the U.S. economy, on the public purse, with impunity, raking in bonuses that make hockey, baseball and basketball players look like paupers.

Canada is at risk of becoming just another western "location" - an instrumental, corporate enterprise where the value of "citizens" is measured by their compliant participation in production of profit for the few while our economy drifts towards becoming a devil's promise just as the United States has become for its "citizens". The twisted, lumbering homunculus that the Republican Party has become in the U.S., branches of which are fertile ground for the kind of religious fundamentalism so heavily criticized in others, would take the U.S. even further to becoming a technical instrument for profit, given the opportunity, of which, after the present economic disaster is forgotten and ordinary people have "adjusted" to new realities, will likely continue until the next boom-bust cycle. It is their history.

Spare us from "trickle-down" arguments which only sustain a devil's promise where the stock market is an arranged casino for insiders. We have seen what is trickling from those who do the trickling, and somehow it doesn't smell good.

While this writing is blunt and paints with a broad brush, these are neverthleless real issues out of which the lives of ordinary people are deeply affected.

This has nothing to do with mere re-distributionist policies or a Mercedes in every driveway or the notion that people down on their luck deserve it because they're either single, drug-using mothers on state welfare, or they didn't work hard enough.

Oddly, it has to do with original, small-c conservative values that I think most Canadians harbour in their hearts and which ground all other political parties including the NDP have yielded to the party with the most consistent and patterned vision. I think the awakening will be a rude one, perhaps even before the next election, but who, or what is in the wings? Who volunteers, and who has a vision of Canada that sees more to its people than instruments of production yet keeps such important economic notions, but in perspective?

It has to do with living in a country, and not merely existing in a technical serfdom where privilege trumps the needs and visions of ordinary people: - A political economy with sufficient promise of getting on with their own lives, raising a family and not retiring as a ward of the state, a prospect which has now been built in the U.S., and which is about to be built in Canada if we do not watch Mr. Harper's government very carefully.

Don

Edited by Don Hudson, 01 February 2012 - 11:15 AM.

[Homerun]

How do you know what Harpers vision for Canada is?

[dagger]

Homerun, on 01 February 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

How do you know what Harpers vision for Canada is?

I'm pretty sure it involves remaining in power until they carry him out feet first.

Edited by dagger, 01 February 2012 - 02:52 PM.

[Don Hudson]

Homerun, on 01 February 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

How do you know what Harpers vision for Canada is?

By comparing with what has occurred in Canada over the past six years in terms of moving politically and economically to the right with what even moderate Republicans are saying they hold most valuable in terms of economic and social values, by examining the history of the U.S. political economy since the early '70's noting the increasing similarities between Canada and the U.S., by noting the warmth with which Republicans talk of Harper's values and the derision offered Obama, (which ignores discussing the actual issues in favour of old-fashioned negative propaganda) and finally by spending time watching what people say vice what they do and remaining skeptical rather than accepting, until the fat lady's sung. If it all turns out as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, great. But Missouri's population is increasing.

Cheers,

Don

[mo32a]

dagger, on 01 February 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure it involves remaining in power until they carry him out feet first.

God, I hope so.

That should give us 30 years or so of great government.

[malcolm]

mo32a, on 01 February 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

God, I hope so.

That should give us 30 years or so of great government.

[Don Hudson]

Quote

Posted Today, 06:48 PM

dagger, on 01 February 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure it involves remaining in power until they carry him out feet first.
God, I hope so.

That should give us 30 years or so of great government.

Well, I for one, plan on being around to eat my words if I'm wrong!

But you may be right...On Day Two of Parliament Harper retreated from messing with the OAP, (nice trial ballon tho'), and his MPs are wondering why they didn't know about his speech at Davos and are ticked about his uncoordinated launch on a highly controversial matter. And of course, Canadians do not tolerate their government, any government, messing with "the peoples' Canada", (the old definition of...) and are swift to punish those who tread where angels fear, so to speak.

[malcolm]

Seems that the idea of reform is not that alien to most Canadians.  Re OAS in particular it was originally set to pay benefits only when one turned 70 . So it is not hard to see why / where the costs have gone up and then when you factor in life expenctancy.......
( in Canada life expectancies at birth have increased by approximately ten years since 1955
(a full two years each decade): male life expectancy has risen from 67.3 years to 76.9
years, and for females from 72.6 to 82.0 years)
http://www.urbanfutu...Report%2066.pdf

Quote

Harper's OAS reforms move in step with public opinion, government polling shows
Heather Scoffield, The Canadian Press
at 16:11 on February 14, 2012, EST.
OTTAWA - New surveys for the government suggest Prime Minister Stephen Harper was tapping into deep anxieties among Canadians when he announced an overhaul Canada's retirement system.
A few months before Harper told the world in Davos, Switzerland, that Canada's retirement benefits would not be sustainable without major changes, the public was already telling him it was losing faith in Ottawa's ability to deal with an aging population.
Polling and focus-group testing for the Privy Council Office point to an overriding concern about aging, and about whether the federal government's policies were sufficient.
"Across the country participants touched on a series of concerns that revolve around the aging of Canada's population, and the government's ability to address the challenges associated with this reality," says the report by Walker Consulting Group, based on public-opinion research done last August.
In open-ended questions, many respondents told the pollsters that the government needed to pay special attention to pension sustainability and the ability of future generations to support growing numbers of retirees.
In responses from across the county, participants said repeatedly they were concerned about the ability of the health-care system to handle the growing burden that comes with an aging population.
"Whether in B.C., Ontario, or Quebec, the issue of how the health-care system will absorb the increased volume of needs and the nature of those needs from the increasing number of elderly Canadians was the most notable concern across the country," the report says.
The government received the report just before Christmas.
A month later, Harper used his podium at an exclusive economics gathering in Davos to announce that he, too, was concerned about taxpayers' ability to finance retirement benefits in the coming decades — and he was preparing to make major changes.
Now, cabinet ministers have indicated that next month's budget will make clear how the government plans to handle rising costs in the Old Age Security system.
The leading option seems to be an eventual increase in the age of eligibility, to age 67 from age 65 — a move that would not affect anyone close to retirement now, but would prompt some in their mid-50s and younger to stay in the workforce longer, and rely on the public purse less.
Previously, Harper promised repeatedly not to touch transfers to the provinces or to individuals in his efforts to eliminate the deficit.
The consultants polled more than 2,000 randomly selected participants on what they thought were the most pressing issues for the federal government to deal with. They also asked how participants felt about the state of the economy, crime, Canadian history and Arctic sovereignty.
The researchers then followed up with 12 focus groups spread across the country. Half were high-income participants, and the other half grouped low income and middle income.
The report prepared for PCO — the bureaucratic arm of the prime minister's office — does not break down results by demographic or quantify the responses.
It concludes the Canadian public is concerned about the fragility of the global economy, but relatively confident that Canada would remain stable, especially in the medium- and long-term.
The report says respondents were generally supportive of the government's deficit-reduction efforts, but were somewhat skeptical of the government's time frame. They were also adamant that deficit reduction should not be at the cost of funding for health care.
They showed little appetite for more tax cuts. And when asked about the government's crime agenda, some cities were far more enthusiastic than others. Saskatoon and Montreal wanted to see a get-tough approach to deal with their rising concerns about criminal activity, while North Vancouver, Toronto and Kitchener were far more lukewarm.
But the preoccupations with aging and health rose to the surface with no prompting from the researchers, the report shows.
Indeed, Harper's musings about OAS have prompted an emotional reaction — as well as a serious policy debate — across the country.
The opposition NDP and Liberals are actively campaigning against raising the age of eligibility. They argue that making retirees wait until they are 67 to collect will hurt the poor and cost the provinces dearly. They also say the changes are not necessary from a fiscal point of view.
The government paid $122,666 for the public-opinion research.

[thor]

mo32a, on 01 February 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

God, I hope so.

That should give us 30 years or so of great government.

I hope so too!!

[J.O.]

New surveys for the government. Hmmm - I'd love to see the ToRs for those surveys ...

[DEFCON]

“The pattern is clear to me: water down pensions gradually, water down health care gradually... next shoe... reward the rich with big tax cuts - it's right out of the Republican playbook, govern for the 1%, not the 99%”

So, what is the matter with people anyway?

Romney is part of the 1%. He released the list of donors to his ‘Super Pac’ the other day, which was a list of ‘friends, also from the 1%, and their contributions to the Super Pac.

Why are so many from the ‘little guys club’ prepared to vote for Romney considering, Romney and his contributing friends represent ‘money’, not the lack thereof? Do the ‘sheep’ really believe that Romney and friends have any interest in the issues affecting the little guy?

Edited by DEFCON, 17 February 2012 - 10:45 AM.