Government lowering retirement age back to 65

[Veovis]

Actually, what I am getting at is that YOU will wind up paying for those who don't save - to a certain extent anyway. It is not a union/non-union left/right thing. The prudent ALWAYS wind up paying for the imprudent, so therefore ALL are better off if the imprudent are forced to save more for retirement and therefore wind up being more prudent.

But your version didn't really have them saving, it was to have employers do a large amount of saving for them. Maybe if we changed to have CPP plus a mandatory deduction to RRSP/TFSA account of your choice it would be better served. Maybe even create a new mandatory untouchable till 50 type savings plan that just comes off the employees cheque to "force them to be responsible". Perhaps we can also create government regulations that take away cable, cell phones, itunes accounts as it is not a "responsible" expense in their lives.

Or maybe, just maybe, it isn't the governments job to take care of you, it's your job to do that.

As for me funding others, no I won't, I'll be paying far less taxes than do now and my tax bills are quite reasonable as they are.

[The Green Barbarian]

Or maybe, just maybe, it isn't the governments job to take care of you, it's your job to do that.

Heresy!

It's totally the government's job to care for you from cradle to grave, and wipe your bum every morning. Say anything else and you don't get the votes. Even if you have nice hair.

[Ka-El]

But your version didn't really have them saving, it was to have employers do a large amount of saving for them. Maybe if we changed to have CPP plus a mandatory deduction to RRSP/TFSA account of your choice it would be better served. Maybe even create a new mandatory untouchable till 50 type savings plan that just comes off the employees cheque to "force them to be responsible".

Those are actually good ideas Veovis - because sadly, not everyone has that special wherewithal that you and GB have and hold everyone else in such disdain for not having. Would it be so terrible for all seniors to have a basic income they paid for - even if they did have to contribute in a mandatory program?

Or maybe, just maybe, it isn't the governments job to take care of you, it's your job to do that.

Absolutely agree 100%, but again, not everyone has that special wherewithal that you and GB have and hold everyone else in such disdain for not having, and given the joy most right-wingers have in subsidizing welfare, wouldn’t it just be simpler and far more cost effective to force everyone to have retirement pensions. How will that negatively affect you? Employees make their contributions via their paycheque and employer contributions are simply a part of their remuneration package. For those folk who are doing their own planning outside of the government, they will just have more. How is this hurting anyone? You guys getting your shorts in a knot because you’re dying to see these lazy nincompoops suffer and live in shame a seniors?

As for me funding others, no I won't, I'll be paying far less taxes than do now

Yes, you are currently funding future welfare. Cheers!

[maryjane48]

why force on to private companies who cant be trusted as we have seen over again, that the govt can do better with adjustments?

[Veovis]

The problem I have, is the "employer portion" Employers already contribute to CPP, EI, Pensions, matched RRSP's and yet "we want more" keeps getting said and this magical employer bottomless money pit opens up somehow.

It's nice that you think I hold people in disdain (though massively false), I simply said they should be responsible. A drunk driver isn't responsible why not pay them for it? What irresponsibility should the government manage for people, and which ones should be rewarded? Why should we not expect people to take some responsibility for their own lives....how is that disdain, and the fact thinking people should be responsible is taken as disdain shows just how far society has become indulgent and blaming everyone else for their own actions.

Perhaps if by the age of 25 if a certain $$ value isn't in a long term plan the person is then deemed irresponsible by the government and they garnish to a savings plan till retirement then? Can we really start forcefully making people more responsible? And if so, why would we only stop at saving money? Why not forced basic cable, cell phone plans restricted, in fact make a new branch of government where anyone not looking financially stable must see a case worker like a social worker but for them to apply to get a better cable plan etc.....why not completely babysit in all aspects.

People long term finances were never the governments job. However the did put in place things that help, not rely on, but help. Many people look at it and know "that will never be enough" and do nothing about that fact......so we should reward that behavior? Shocking really.

[flamingfingers]

Veovis wrote:

The problem I have, is the "employer portion" Employers already contribute to CPP, EI, Pensions, matched RRSP's and yet "we want more" keeps getting said and this magical employer bottomless money pit opens up somehow.

You missed this part of Ka-El's post:

Employees make their contributions via their paycheque and employer contributions are simply a part of their remuneration package. For those folk who are doing their own planning outside of the government, they will just have more.

[d0nb]

Unread postby d0nb » Today, 2:28 am

Government assistance should be made available based on need, not something as arbitrary as age.

That sounds dangerously like "from each according to their ability and to each according to their need". A free ride for the lazy people of any society, as identified by Russia. And wealth for those in charge.

I didn't intend to invoke the corpse of socialism - it was just a comment on the shortcomings of formulaic simplicity. One day short of 18, we are judged to be incompetent to vote, but a day later, we're golden. One day before delivery, we can be killed with impunity, but a day later it would be murder -- that sort of thing.

I think that most of us can agree that if someone is in need of government assistance, they should receive it. Making them wait until some arbitrary age limit is silly. It seems just as silly to spend the money on people who don't need it.

[d0nb]

As long as those who need help get it, I find it hard to really care whether the official age for OAS is 65 or 67. At this point it's a bit like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the proverbial sinking ship.

It's interesting to note that the age of retirement in Canada in the 1920's was considered to be 70, eight years after the average age of death at that time. In the early 50's, a means-tested pension was introduced. The age was set at 65, just slightly below the life expectancy of 69. Now of course, most of us will live for over 20 years after the official age of retirement. Increasingly, that will be a strain on government revenues. Not unlike a Ponzi scheme, we have relied on younger generations to pay for the benefits of older generations. All such schemes come to an end, and we shouldn't have an expectation that anyone will be capable of paying for our retirement.

Several countries including France, Germany, and Britain are moving to increase the age at which citizens become eligible to receive old age pensions, so the gradual move from 65 to 67 by Canada wouldn't have been out of the ordinary. Perhaps JT should drop these countries a note explaining how he plans to buck the trend without endangering the system. No doubt they would love to avail themselves of his superior wisdom.

[Ka-El]

The problem I have, is the "employer portion" Employers already contribute to CPP, EI, Pensions, matched RRSP's and yet "we want more" keeps getting said and this magical employer bottomless money pit opens up somehow.

Flaming caught it. It is simply calculated in as part of the total remuneration package.

.., I simply said they should be responsible.

And I agreed they should. However, I simply recognize the reality that is not always going to happen. There are also those who through no fault of their own will end up in dire financial straits. Can we really start forcefully making people more responsible? Without adding red herring arguments to make the issue more convoluted, why not ensure everyone is financially able to at least take basic care of themselves after their work years are over?

People long term finances were never the governments job.

No, the world has changed. It used to be the children’s jobs to look after the old folk. Shocking really.

[Veovis]

No, the world has changed. It used to be the children’s jobs to look after the old folk. Shocking really.

Never once have my parents ever hinted that it was my job to fund their retirement, if yours are that unfortunate. IF they ever do need help though I will certainly do what I can to assist, but they raised me to take care of myself and my family, but not to expect others to carry me.

As for the employer portion being part of the remuneration package, could you elaborate please. I would like to hear how this possibly doesn't cost employers more money.

Between Health, Dental, Long term Disability, Group Life, Pension, CPP, EI, WCB, RRSP plans, how much more do people need? Are they really even remotely hard done by these days? A lot of those benefits are 100% employer paid in a lot of places as well with the employees having no clue of the costs, and yet "just add more" is a solution?

Perhaps you do have an idea worth investigating though so I'd like to hear the details of how it would work.

[The Green Barbarian]

*removed*

[The Green Barbarian]

I didn't intend to invoke the corpse of socialism - it was just a comment on the shortcomings of formulaic simplicity. One day short of 18, we are judged to be incompetent to vote, but a day later, we're golden. One day before delivery, we can be killed with impunity, but a day later it would be murder -- that sort of thing.

I think that most of us can agree that if someone is in need of government assistance, they should receive it. Making them wait until some arbitrary age limit is silly. It seems just as silly to spend the money on people who don't need it.

my favorite arbitrary number was insurance on my car. At 24 and 364 days my insurance rate was x, but one day later it was half of x. Like in 24 hours I suddenly became this amazing driver.

10 out of 10 post by the way. If we want the age lowered, great, but subsidizing those who don't need it is another issue. We can make stupid comments about holding others in disdain, or we can talk about the actual problem here. Unfortunately, too many want to bury their head in the sand while criticizing others for not assuming the same position.

[The Green Barbarian]

Perhaps JT should drop these countries a note explaining how he plans to buck the trend without endangering the system. No doubt they would love to avail themselves of his superior wisdom.

The note would read thusly:

"if the guy you are running against says that he will raise the age to 67, just say that you will drop it back to 65. Almost everyone will vote for you and no one will question you on how you will pay for it, trust me, they'll be too busy making stupid comments about anyone who disagrees with you to question where the money will come from. Also, it helps to have nice hair and take lots of selfies, so always keep upgrading your I-Phone." - JT

[The Green Barbarian]

Flaming caught it. It is simply calculated in as part of the total remuneration package.
.

what? The "total remuneration package" - what the hell does this even mean? And I say this knowing your answer will probably be held in disdain. Right now it is mostly doubt.

[The Green Barbarian]

Between Health, Dental, Long term Disability, Group Life, Pension, CPP, EI, WCB, RRSP plans, how much more do people need? Are they really even remotely hard done by these days? A lot of those benefits are 100% employer paid in a lot of places as well with the employees having no clue of the costs, and yet "just add more" is a solution?
.

yes, these were my thoughts exactly. There is already so much loaded into the "total remuneration package" as it is, and now some magic wand is supposed to just be waved such that people can retire and not burden the government? What?????