Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 02-08-2017, 10:32 AM
CNP's Avatar
CNP CNP is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: WMU 303
Posts: 8,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfBreed View Post
I believe that the age of retirement should have a direct mirror of the maximum age of military service on being retired.

If that makes sense.
No it doesn't . The retirement age for military is 55 with a possible extension to 60. That should NEVER be changed. You can't have a bunch of geezers in the military. I know.........I was one of them (retired at 60). One has to compete with much younger people all the time. Don't even think that the geezers could all be arm chair generals.......it doesn't work that way. There is such a thing as the "Universality of Service". The principle of universality of service or "soldier first" principle holds that CAF members are liable to perform general military duties and common defence and security duties, not just the duties of their military occupation or occupational specification. This may include, but is not limited to, the requirement to be physically fit, employable and deployable for general operational duties.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-08-2017, 10:36 AM
CNP's Avatar
CNP CNP is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: WMU 303
Posts: 8,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skidderman View Post
It doesn't make sense. I would think wanting people to retire younger would create more jobs for both young people & immigrants ending up with both still being taxpayers. It's really hard to understand.
You're on the wrong track. The govt could care less about people retiring earlier or later..........................they just don't want to cough up paying CPP until later.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-08-2017, 10:40 AM
propliner propliner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,309
Default

The whole pension thing looks like a pyramid scheme, where more people at the bottom are constantly required to feed the few at the top. Same goes for the public sector wage hikes and retirement programs. The problem is, Canada's wealth comes from its natural resources, and cutting back on production and taxing them into oblivion is our financial death knell. You can't get blood from a stone.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:01 AM
The Cook The Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canmore
Posts: 2,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jstubbs View Post
This sort of stuff scares the wits out of me as a young guy. All the baby boomers going into elder age on CPP are going to fully bankrupt this country (never mind the healthcare costs!) and I have zero faith in any governmental aptitude in figuring out a solution beyond taxing my future earnings to the moon and back.
If I check my pay stubs for the last 45 years I'm pretty sure I will find contributions by my employers and myself to CPP. Pretty sure I paid my dues and am entitled to collect CPP benefits just like all the older folks that collected while I was working. If you think the system is bound for failure then start preparing now when you are young just like most of us did.
__________________
Woke up with a pulse, best day ever
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:21 AM
markg markg is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary Area
Posts: 2,377
Default Wealth

To me the question is not about how our nation can afford CPP or other benefits for seniors; it is where has all the wealth gone?

We have one of the richest countries in the world with one of the smallest populations. We have huge oil reserves, gigantic forests, rich mineral deposits of gold, silver, diamonds, and uranium. Were is all this money going? When I look at a nation like Norway and see the benefits there citizens get relative to what we as Canadians receive I am flabbergasted.

The level of corruption and waste in our government and civil service must be astronomical. The question becomes how do we change it?

Last edited by markg; 02-08-2017 at 11:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:24 AM
markg markg is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary Area
Posts: 2,377
Default Divide and Conquer

I think having the generations blame each other for what is happening is exactly what those in power want. It is not the fault of baby boomers, gen x , or millenials. The fault lies squarely on our politicians and beaurocrats.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:24 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

So Trudeau has no problems with Canadians that have worked and paid taxes for most of their life having to work even longer, while he taxes their heath care benefits, so that he can use the money to bail out Bombardier, and give our hard earned money to foreign countries, and to support refugees that have not contributed to this country.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:33 AM
markg markg is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary Area
Posts: 2,377
Default Retirement age

Its hate the fact they are moving the goal posts in the middle of the game. I started working and contributing to CPP at very young age. I worked 36 hours a week while I was in grade twelve back in the 1980's. I have never taken a single penny from EI as I have never collected it once. I have never had that "dream Job" that you always wanted. I have worked to pay the bills not for job satisfaction. I was told that if I worked hard and saved my pennies that one day I could retire and enjoy the fruits of my labor. In my 40's I am told by my government that they mismanaged my pennies and now I cant retire until 67 unlike those that went before me who were able to retire at 65. Enough is enough i say! Surely there must be other programs that are funded by our government that can be cut so that I am able to enjoy the last remaining years of my life without toil.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:37 AM
markg markg is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary Area
Posts: 2,377
Default Trust fund

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
So Trudeau has no problems with Canadians that have worked and paid taxes for most of their life having to work even longer, while he taxes their heath care benefits, so that he can use the money to bail out Bombardier, and give our hard earned money to foreign countries, and to support refugees that have not contributed to this country.
They should just take money out of there trust funds if they want a comfortable living, duh!

Or as a Queen Marie Antoinette said "Let the eat Cake"
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:38 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg View Post
Its hate the fact they are moving the goal posts in the middle of the game. I started working and contributing to CPP at very young age. I worked 36 hours a week while I was in grade twelve back in the 1980's. I have never taken a single penny from EI as I have never collected it once. I have never had that "dream Job" that you always wanted. I have worked to pay the bills not for job satisfaction. I was told that if I worked hard and saved my pennies that one day I could retire and enjoy the fruits of my labor. In my 40's I am told by my government that they mismanaged my pennies and now I cant retire until 67 unlike those that went before me who were able to retire at 65. Enough is enough i say! Surely there must be other programs that are funded by our government that can be cut so that I am able to enjoy the last remaining years of my life without toil.
Trudeau could simply stop giving the taxpayers money away to foreign countries, for profit companies, and refugees.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:47 AM
HighlandHeart HighlandHeart is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybuster View Post
Even harder when you look at current unemployment numbers. But maybe they are looking to the future.
Remember that those unemployment numbers are only people who are out of work and still actively seeking work. The real unemployment rate is higher.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-08-2017, 12:00 PM
Macdrizzle Macdrizzle is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobinthesky View Post
The baby boomers are generally considered to have been borne from 1946 to 1964 and they had lots of offspring. It's the generations since then that have decided not to have kids.
1 word: feminism
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-08-2017, 12:10 PM
calgarychef calgarychef is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macdrizzle View Post
1 word: feminism
Nope one word.....birth control.

The boomers were the first generation to have birth control and they used it lots!
They didn't have the big families that were common just one generation earlier and thus (drum roll please) there aren't enough offspring to support them through retirement and old age. Couple that with the fact that were living longer and don't die at 67 like we did when the retirement age was set at 65 and we need to support the elderly for a lot longer before they die, and.....with new medical techniques the cost of that health care has gone way up.

This was predicted about 30 years ago and at the time the boomers could have taxed themselves more to prepare for what we're about to see. They didn't. The rest of us are left holding the bag. Now they complain that they'll have to work two years longer (we all will). we complain about immigration that would add to the tax base and provide more workers when the boomers aren't working.

It's a mess.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-08-2017, 01:09 PM
DevilsAdvocate DevilsAdvocate is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 264
Default

Well maybe if they set the rules that made sense.
You should have had to work 20years in Canada before you can claim OAS and any supplement.

The best option would have been to create an RRSP style pension plan.
Everyone puts their mandated % amount in each year and so does your employer. BUT there is a minimum amount as well. I know the impact to the low wage worker will hit harder, but remember his employer is matching this.....and if it doesn't happen, his pension will be when he really feels the pain. Sooooo.....while he is young and able and working.....pay to provide for your retirement.

The second thought on this is that ALL pension plans should be converted to this format. Why we tolerate defined benefit plans that have so many rules/variables and excuses is beyond me. Indexation, early draw, surviorship, etc, etc, etc,..... And if the fund doesn't do well in investments, the shortfall usually falls back on those still earning and the govt or org to bail it out. And if you choose wrong and die early...too bad. And nothing is left $$. Just a big bag of trouble one way or another. And poorly set up in today's world of options.


The third thought on this is, why do only those luckily enough to get a govt job get a pension plan. In the past lower wages were the trade off. That is now the opposite. And the job security of a govt position is much more a factor. True that big corps have pension plans...but that is slowly going the way of the dinosaur. And nowadays, having a job that stays with one company long enough to collect a pension is like finding a unicorn.


The forth thought on this is that we can't have our seniors starving on the streets if they did not plan for their senior years. Its just too untenable for most people. So in Canada we have so many other social programs for them.....OAS, Supplement, etc. In that case WE ARE PAYING FOR THEIR RETIREMENT.....just not in the tradition sense.


Fifth: All this retirement money in the govt hands has made them greedy and careless.....and they have spent it, versus actually put it aside like they should have.....just too tempting for a sleaseball politician with no morals.

SOOO....where am I leading this all to.

This: We should covert, CPP, RRSP, All Pension Plans into a single system.
That system is based on the RRSP concept.....your money, your retirement, your control (within certain reasonable rules). And this should not be in the gov'ts hands....as that can't be trusted. So that leaves investment accounts with major banks (some risk...but better than with the liberals)

AND make all employers pay into it on a matching basis with minimum amounts for employees and employers. Employers can negotiate or offer to attract skilled ones, better % amounts. But everyone has a pension plan and can see the amount in it. And maybe strive harder to increase it. Much more tangible and retirement seems possible then.

The benefits of this concept are that the social system in our country does not have to bear the burden of these OAS and Supplements programs to any significant degree (yes the lazy and non-earning will always be there). And we don't have to give as much to those that didn't work. And we have no obligation to provide a retirement to the rest of the world that would like to come here for that objective.

Plus if you die early, your accumulated amount is passed on to your children after taxes.....or to your wife's plan with no taxes.

This is a rough outline.....I have much more detailed thoughts
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-08-2017, 02:54 PM
Scott h Scott h is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: At the lake
Posts: 2,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skidderman View Post
It doesn't make sense. I would think wanting people to retire younger would create more jobs for both young people & immigrants ending up with both still being taxpayers. It's really hard to understand.
Your scenario works only if those that retire don't draw a pension.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-08-2017, 02:57 PM
Scott h Scott h is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: At the lake
Posts: 2,502
Default

History has proven that Harper was yet again correct.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-08-2017, 03:07 PM
Scott h Scott h is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: At the lake
Posts: 2,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg View Post
To me the question is not about how our nation can afford CPP or other benefits for seniors; it is where has all the wealth gone?

We have one of the richest countries in the world with one of the smallest populations. We have huge oil reserves, gigantic forests, rich mineral deposits of gold, silver, diamonds, and uranium. Were is all this money going? When I look at a nation like Norway and see the benefits there citizens get relative to what we as Canadians receive I am flabbergasted.

The level of corruption and waste in our government and civil service must be astronomical. The question becomes how do we change it?
All a person needs to do is look at life expectancy. In 1940 a male could expect to live to 60, by 2017 that number is 82 !!!! Who knows what it will be in another 20 years. What we do know is that the older you get the bigger the drain on society you become. Almost all of your lifetime medical costs occur in the last few years of your life and through technology we can continue to drag those out further every year.
The system wasn't designed to handle the kind if load that is coming no matter how large our natural resources.
As to Norway, they have a minuscule country to service (comparably) , plus they pay much more in taxes.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-08-2017, 03:44 PM
markg markg is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary Area
Posts: 2,377
Default Oh Contrair

The Max tax rate in Canada is 58.75% plus 10% for CPP (split with Employer)

Norways max tax rate is 46.9% including pension contribution.

Canada GST 5%
Norways 10%-25%

Site for info is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_tax_rates

Sorry to say my Fellow Canadians we are getting majorly ripped off.

They have a health care system like ours and they have free education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher...tion_in_Norway
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-08-2017, 04:07 PM
Scott h Scott h is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: At the lake
Posts: 2,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg View Post
The Max tax rate in Canada is 58.75% plus 10% for CPP (split with Employer)

Norways max tax rate is 46.9% including pension contribution.

Canada GST 5%
Norways 10%-25%

Site for info is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_tax_rates

Sorry to say my Fellow Canadians we are getting majorly ripped off.

They have a health care system like ours and they have free education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher...tion_in_Norway
You are right about their better health care and education. Just try and make any changes to Canada's and who ever does will be voted out very shortly.
We love to complain but we don't want to do anything to change it.
The Norwegians also take much more responsibility for their own health, obesity rates are far lower than ours.
Don't however minimize the effect of their 25% VAT (most goods). That brings in a HUGE amount every year (but maybe it's a good investment for them????)
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-08-2017, 04:29 PM
The Cook The Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canmore
Posts: 2,102
Default

IMO it all boils down to choices made at a young age. I retired at age 63 last sept and took reduced CPP along with a company pension (negotiated) and a union pension (also negotiated). My career choice was dictated by necessity not what I wanted to do, kids and mortgage tend to hold your feet to the fire. People tell me I'm lucky but luck had nothing to do with it. Lottery winners are lucky. You got to look out for yourself and do what's right for you and your family.
__________________
Woke up with a pulse, best day ever
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-08-2017, 04:29 PM
ETOWNCANUCK ETOWNCANUCK is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,900
Default

So 27 years until I can retire.

That's by todays numbers.

I'll wait and see what it will be in 25 years.

who knows, by then I'll either be dead or they'll have raised it so high I'll have to work until I am dead.

Might as well work on my

"Welcome to Walmart" spiel
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-08-2017, 06:05 PM
Fur Fur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 592
Default

When your young and able bodied, one doesn't have the money to enjoy life.
When your old and have the money to enjoy life, one doesn't have the body.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-08-2017, 06:15 PM
bobinthesky bobinthesky is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Between the mountains and the prairies.
Posts: 1,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarychef View Post
Nope one word.....birth control.

The boomers were the first generation to have birth control and they used it lots!
They didn't have the big families that were common just one generation earlier and thus (drum roll please) there aren't enough offspring to support them through retirement and old age. Couple that with the fact that were living longer and don't die at 67 like we did when the retirement age was set at 65 and we need to support the elderly for a lot longer before they die, and.....with new medical techniques the cost of that health care has gone way up.

This was predicted about 30 years ago and at the time the boomers could have taxed themselves more to prepare for what we're about to see. They didn't. The rest of us are left holding the bag. Now they complain that they'll have to work two years longer (we all will). we complain about immigration that would add to the tax base and provide more workers when the boomers aren't working.

It's a mess.

The boomers had about .947 kids each, the boomers kids only had .802 kids per person and their kids are the so called millennials. It remains to be seen what their birth rate will be but I'll guarantee you it won't be more than the boomers. So how is this all the boomers fault?
And how were the boomers supposed to tax themselves more? Just start mailing more money to the government so they can give it away to other countries! If it's that easy then why haven't the boomers kids and the millennials taxed themselves more to cover it?
__________________
Life is too short too shoot ugly guns.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-08-2017, 06:27 PM
JustMe JustMe is offline
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,414
Default Fed advisers call for higher retirement age

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
Trudeau could simply stop giving the taxpayers money away to foreign countries, for profit companies, and refugees.


And that's more or less what's happened. Pension contributions went into general revenue. And each government, no not just Trudeau, have happily spent away to buy votes. Now, the older generation is reaching pension age and guess what? They spent all the money and have no idea how they're going to make it up. The financial wizards warned them 40 years ago, but egos wouldn't let them listen, when votes could be bought. Sorta like the road tax on gasoline that was supposed to go to pay for road and infrastructure repairs etc. But instead the provincial governments started using it as general revenue to pay for all kind of crap not needed, but bought votes. Now there's no money set aside for new or repaired roads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-08-2017, 07:18 PM
hal53's Avatar
hal53 hal53 is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lougheed,Ab.
Posts: 12,736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMe View Post
And that's more or less what's happened. Pension contributions went into general revenue. And each government, no not just Trudeau, have happily spent away to buy votes. Now, the older generation is reaching pension age and guess what? They spent all the money and have no idea how they're going to make it up. The financial wizards warned them 40 years ago, but egos wouldn't let them listen, when votes could be bought. Sorta like the road tax on gasoline that was supposed to go to pay for road and infrastructure repairs etc. But instead the provincial governments started using it as general revenue to pay for all kind of crap not needed, but bought votes. Now there's no money set aside for new or repaired roads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Whoa....this from the guy who has stated numerous times that his vote goes to the party that does the most for him personally?.... I guess vote buying works....
__________________
The future ain't what it used to be - Yogi Berra
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-08-2017, 07:46 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

I think retirement age should increase, it should be tied to life expectancy. Back when it first came into effect it was 70 years old which was higher then the average life expectancy...

In 1965 when the pension age was reduced to 65 years the life expectancy was only 72. Now it is well over 80 with most people living much healthier longer lives.

It should be bumped back up to 70 imo. I know that is easy for a young whipper snapper like myself to say but I think it is fair. Have reduced amounts available like they currently do at 60 or at a minimum greater incentives to wait until 70+.

I would be interested to know what the average person retiring now has paid into the system vs what they are likely to receive. No luck finding that info though.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-08-2017, 07:57 PM
JustMe JustMe is offline
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hal53 View Post
Whoa....this from the guy who has stated numerous times that his vote goes to the party that does the most for him personally?.... I guess vote buying works....


Yup and the party protecting my paid for 45 plus years pension is certainly going to benefit me. That's not vote buying, that's common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-08-2017, 08:35 PM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jstubbs View Post
This sort of stuff scares the wits out of me as a young guy. All the baby boomers going into elder age on CPP are going to fully bankrupt this country (never mind the healthcare costs!) and I have zero faith in any governmental aptitude in figuring out a solution beyond taxing my future earnings to the moon and back.
CPP is 100% funded by the worker and employee. The CPP has assets of over 200 billion, the baby boomers are not going to bankrupt anything, as they worked for a living.

http://www.cppib.com/en/public-media...year-end-2015/
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-08-2017, 08:44 PM
Fur Fur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
I think retirement age should increase, it should be tied to life expectancy. Back when it first came into effect it was 70 years old which was higher then the average life expectancy...

In 1965 when the pension age was reduced to 65 years the life expectancy was only 72. Now it is well over 80 with most people living much healthier longer lives.

It should be bumped back up to 70 imo. I know that is easy for a young whipper snapper like myself to say but I think it is fair. Have reduced amounts available like they currently do at 60 or at a minimum greater incentives to wait until 70+.

I would be interested to know what the average person retiring now has paid into the system vs what they are likely to receive. No luck finding that info though.
81 is average age. Of those, the question is how good are those 80 year olds. Most are not doing back flips.

I think retirement is a good thing. I sure do not want to retire only to be bed ridden and than die.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-08-2017, 09:22 PM
CNP's Avatar
CNP CNP is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: WMU 303
Posts: 8,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
I think retirement age should increase, it should be tied to life expectancy. Back when it first came into effect it was 70 years old which was higher then the average life expectancy...

In 1965 when the pension age was reduced to 65 years the life expectancy was only 72. Now it is well over 80 with most people living much healthier longer lives.

It should be bumped back up to 70 imo. I know that is easy for a young whipper snapper like myself to say but I think it is fair. Have reduced amounts available like they currently do at 60 or at a minimum greater incentives to wait until 70+.

I would be interested to know what the average person retiring now has paid into the system vs what they are likely to receive. No luck finding that info though.
Anyone can find out what they have contributed. Open an account: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-...t/log-out.html

From 1973 to 2015 I contributed: $43,548.65

I have been collecting since 2015 (age 60). I collected $8453.88 in 2016.

In four more years I will have collected more than I contributed.

This is not taking into account how much I would have made in interest over those 42 years had I invested $43,548.65 somewhere else.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.