Renegade

Yes, managing a pension or beneifts plan is not easy, nor is it the core business of a company. That is why most companies let insurance companies manage their benefit plans. The suggestion that employees and employers pay into an RRSP scheme makes the most sense. Employees should keep all funds (both employee contributions and employer contributions) once the employee quits, afterall it is their money. Yet another reason why a company should not be providing this benefit. The company should just provide employment income and the worker can buy life insurance if they so choose.

How about we just make the daycare subsidy only available to welfare applicants who get a job? That way it is targeted at easing people off welfare as opposed to everyone who is considered "low income". I think that by targeting only those on welfare, you direct the funds to where they will be most effective.

Yes I think I do. People who don't want to look after their own affairs are like birds who refuse to leave the nest. They are used to the parents looking after their every need, so why would they leave? The answer is at some point they need to be pushed. It is clear that some people will always be looking for a "nanny" to look after them, and will feel a sense of entitlement to the services the "nanny" offers. They are also generally the same people who whine and complain when the "nanny" fails to provide for their every need. It is clear for those people, they need to be forced into the water to sink or swim.

That would be all the more reason to put the pension control in the hands of the workers. For example, my company makes partial contributions to my RRSP. If I make bad choices and my RRSP value falls to zero, do you think that looks bad on the company? I think any reasonable person would say it reflects on me, and not the company. They company has done its part by contributing to the plan. If individual investors screw up, it hardly reflects on the company, however if the company pension plan fails, that has a much worse impact on the company image. The risk is far less to a company to let workers manage their own plans. If there is anywhere to focus efforts it is in making investment managers accountable and putting sufficient deterrence in place to prevent fraud. It is not by discounting the approach which lets individual investors make their own decisions. Virtually all large financial transactions involve risk. When buying a house there is risk, which is why we rely on expertise from real estate agents and home inspectors. We let even stupid and naive people buy houses. The situation is no different for retirement. I fail to see a convincing case where the coercion of the company or government is worth any added security. If individuals lack the understanding and want the security, they are free to direct their investments to GICs, Money Market Funds, T-Bills and Government Bonds. I know quite a few people who make their own investment decisons. There are some who would gamble and there are others who are very conservative. The point is they choose their own investmetn profile. It is not left to the investment manager to decide. You would like to take away the ability of people to choose risky investments for the retirement pension. I believe it is unacceptable that people shouldn't be allowed to choose what they do with their investment funds. Stupidity deserves what stupidity gets, and government shouldn't intervene. We are not talking about 4 year old kids here, we are taking about adults who have the power and obligation to make their own decisions.

Then I am failing to understand your argument. Is not your reasoning that by providing the low-income family childcare, we keep them off welfare? Clearly, if they are low-income and working (but not on welfare), they have already found a childcare solution which allows them to work. Thus no government support is nessary to keep them off welfare. If they are too poor to afford childcare, and are already on welfare, then this is a category, you don't feel they need an additional subsidiy anyway.

Drea, do you have an links to the stories or reports of the lack of spaces? I know a lot of parents with children who need childcare. To date every single one has been able to find childcare if they have been willing to pay the cost. So, I'm simply perplexed at these continuing reports about the lack of spaces.

If by low income you mean low enough that they are on welfare, then yes I agree. I also beleive this can be a self-funding plan if the amount they save on welfare is at least as much as what it cost for the child-care subsidy. As welfare is a provincial responsibility, there is no need for a federal plan or funding in this area.

What examples are you referring to when you state that it hasn't worked in the past? While Stelco may be an extreme example, the incidence of pension plan underfunding is not. See: DB plans surprisingly underfunded: report Many other pension and benefit plans end up being funded by current workers so much so that it is a huge drain on companies and affects their ability to compete or even survive.(eg GM) The problem is that with both company pension plan and CPP, control is effectively out of the hands of the worker to manage their own retirment destiny. Most people I know who do not have company defined-benefit pension plans, have RRSPs. They are free to persue an investment strategy which is in line with their tolerance for risk. I am completely for protecting investors from unscrupulous advisors, but in those cases we are discussing protecting against criminal actions, not simple bad decision. Ultimately the fact is anyone can make bad decisions, the person themselves, their advisor, the company, the government. In my view a person should have the ultimate power to designate who should manage their retirement funds. To protect people against themselves means to take away individual freedom of choice, and in my view it is an unacceptable trade-off. Besides that, if CPP is our "forced savings" plan, why not let people a measure of their own freedom of choice for their company pension plan. Many companies are realizing that they shouldn't be accepting pension plan risk, as they haven't proved themselves great at predicting future liabilities and at predicting investment returns. Thus you see the wholesale exodus of companys toward DC plans. It is a fundamental requrement for people to function in society that they be able to manage money. That is true whether they are managing day-to-day expenses, saving for a house, or planning a retirement. Those who do not, will not, or can not, should suffer the consequences.

What about the stupid, the naive and the gullible ? It sounds very positive to promote personal reponsibility, but you could also say you support scams and rip-offs as many of these people are not bright enough and will be cheated out of their money. That is why many pensions lack an 'opt-out' feature. People need to be protected from making bad decisions that would end up costing all of us. Well, Michael, the fact that pension plans run by companies with government collusion proves that even if you don't trust people with their own money there is no guarantee that they won't get scammed and ripped off. Given the choice of government, the company, or people managing their own money, I would choose people. Why? because they have the most vested stake and therfore will be most careful with the money. Also they will suffer the consequences of their own actions. It is an interesting question on if "People need to be protected from making bad decisions"? In my view, no they shouldn't be protected from their own bad decisions. What should be done is minimize the impact of their bad decisions on the rest of society. One possible remedy to protect people from themselves, is to force people to save for retirement. This is the model in Australia. Personally even though I already save for retirement, I don't like this coercion, but I could live with a minimium amount.

If they are incapable of managing their own money, they should at least have the good sense to hire a trusted investment advisor. In any case the decision is entirely in their hands, if they aren't up to accepting resposibilty for their fate then they deserve the fate they get. They shoudl be the last ones complaining when government or companies mismanage their money, when they are not even up to the job themselves. So margrace, you point out in your examples that there is a risk in companies or government managing workers retirement funds, and you say that most workers can't manage their own money. So, who exactly do you think should be in charge of their funds?

Yes there is an excellent way to protect people from the negligence of government and company decisions. Abandon defined-benefit pension plans like many companies are doing. Turn over the pension money to the workers each year in the form of a defined-contribution pension plan. That way if the plan goes broke, it will be due to the negligence of the worker not the company or government.

Actually it's not that the NDP looks like the party with ethics, it looks like the party whose ethics have never been tested. Until the NDP are in power they won't truly be able to demonstrate that they have just as few ethics as all the other parties. BTW, why is this thread in the provincial politics section?

I think the thread was started as an attempt to understand those innate differences. Unfortunately August, not everyone even accepts that there are gender differences which would lead to a dominance of one gender over the other in certain roles. They attribute the different representations of genders to societal and economic pressures. Because of that reasoning, they advocate for artificial incentives and barriers in order to equalize representation. Their wrong premise leads them to wrong conclusions and thus to implement measures which are both unfair and futile.

By that same justification, I am born (and therefor need shelter), so the government should provide universal shelter (and to the same standard). By that same justification, I am born, (and therefore need food), so the government should provide universal food (and to the same standard). Is that your position? We can't deny healthcare? Why not? I don't understand the rationale that we can deny childcare but not healthcare. I don't really want to spin this thread into a discussion on healthcare, but you assume that the only alternative to the universal government-paying model we have now is one in which people get private insurance through their workplace (ie the US model). There are many other models. So then can I assume by your statement above that you only advocate subsidized childcare to those on welfare and as a means to get off welfare? I agree, but we already pay people for having children. Its called the Child Tax Benefit and the Childcare deduction. Would you be ok removing those as well?

Drea, if I remember, you have claimed to be a supporter of universal health care. Which in our system means the same healthcare for everyone, rich or poor. The argument can be made that the rich are capable of paying for their own health insurance, so potentially free (or subsidized) healthcare should only be provided for the poor. Why is it you have an inconsistent position in that you think healthchare should be universal but childcare should not, afterall do the same principles not apply?

I'm not a big fan of Harper's childcare offering, however there have been a number of criticisms which should be addressed. Late last week Jeffery Simpson wrote an article in the Globe & Mail critical of Harper's childcare plan. Simpson makes the same points as many posters above, however the objections seem to be directed mostly in two specific areas: 1. There is no accountability for where the money is spent. Parents can spend the money on childcare, on beer and popcorn, or vacations if they so choose, therefore the argument goes this should not be considered a childcare policy. This is an interesting argument, and it might hold some validity if it were not specificly directed at the childcare benefit. We have a GST credit. There is no proof required that the recepient incurs GST costs which need to be offset. There is a Child-Tax Benefit. There is no accountability that the parent spends the money for the benefit of the child. Welfare recepients are given a "shelter allowance", again with no proof requred that the funds are actually being spent on shelter. So the critics of this policy seem to have blinders on and seem self-serving to single out the Child Care benefit in this regard. 2. The objection has also been raised that since $1200 is insignificant in the cost of childcare, Harper's plan cannot be considered a true childcare policy. These arguments ignore the overall picture on the childcare costs. Lets look closer at Nocraps' numbers above. The couple above has a marginal tax rate of 46%. (ie they get to keep 56% of the $1200 Child Care benefit). Now let's assume the couple pays $6000/year for childcare. That couple gets to deduct the $6000 from their income in affect avoiding taxes on that income. The net benefit to the couple of that deduction is $2760 (ie $6000 * 46%). So the total benefit to the couple is $3413 (ie $2760 + $653). This represents 57% of the childcare cost that the parent incurs and taxpayers pay for. This is not even including the CTB. So in effect this payment tops off an already generous childcare benefit to parents, and still some parents object? I've said that I'm not a big fan of the CPC childcare plan, but I think there is an important principle at stake. It was a promise made during the election campaign, and a promise made should be a promise kept. Canadian voters were well aware of the CPC platform, and enough of them voted for CPC to allow them to form the govenment. As much as I don't like the policy, it is more important that Harper keep his word to voters than abandon a policy which some don't like.

I'll tell you this. The younger generation is not necessarily that happy with the older generation being so close in looks preferences and actions. For example, my daughter doesn't really like it if I use teenage or hip-hop slang in speech. She also hates it if I like many of the same songs she does. I think she is struggling for her own identity, something distinct from her parents.

There are generally several reasons for punishing crimes: deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. With capital punishment, since rehabilitation is not a motivation, and deterrence has mixed results, there is still retribution as the motivation.

I agree. He shouldn't. There should be no direct nor indirect subsidy to parents for childcare. There is already childcare tax deduction and CTB. That, is already too much.

We position children for success by setting educational and childcare standards and giving them the freedom to pursue a path according to their skills and desires. We don't do it be letting parents off the hook for their finanical responsibilites.

August, let me address the reasons you gave for why we should collectively support parents: True. We put the cost of education mostly on the property owner, and that doesn't make any sense either. The cost of a children's education should be borne by the parents in the same way childcare should. Some animals devour their young. Many animals leave their injured and elderly to die. Some species kill the male after breeding. Since when have we modeled human society on animal behaviour? Absolutely!! If my parents couldn't afford to pay for my essentials they shouldn't have had me or should have given me up for adoption. Same is true for other parents. That is part of the responsibility of being a parent. Either accept it or don't be a parent.

You are correct private pension plans cannot arbitrarily change premiums. It is the particularily coercive nature of government that it can and does. And you are correct that no pension plan can clawback according to income, but that is also true of CPP. As I said there is NO clawback of CPP according to income. (You must be thinking of OAS and GAINS). I don't really have any problem calling OAS and GAINS welfare. In fact I have said so before. However I find CPP in its present form is more similar to a pension scheme than it is to welfare. Yes, the government can change the rules and it may become more welfare-like, but my comments are directed to what it is today. I'm not really clear on what you mean by social insurance. Every insurance scheme is risk based, and every insurance I am aware of, participation is voluntary. So I don't seem much similarity with CPP. Except for your view that this is a tax, and my view that it is a pension scheme, do you then agree with me that the government should not be involved in CPP as it now stands?

I would not characterize CPP as welfare for the reasons I stated. One other point, is that you can receive CPP benefits regardless of which country you are a resident. What welfare schemes are comparable? Yes CPP is a transfer, but so are private Defined-Benefit contribution plans. The link between contributions and benefits is no different than for a private pension plan. You get pension plan benefits, you are taxed on it. I disagree. The analogy is the same with CPP. You point out that you can quit the plan because you can move out of the juristiction of the plan (ie the company). With CPP you quit the plan by leaving the juristiction (ie leave the country). With CPP you chose the managers indirectly in your choice of which party you elect. Same analogy as a private plan. Sure, but the whole Enron, Worldcom affair has proven that scandals and corruption are not the exclusive domain of public organizations. In a private DBPP (Defined Benefit Pension Plan), payments to retired workers are made through a combination of company contributions, worker contributions, and the plan's investmetn returns. That too is a transfer. So if you consider CPP basically a social benefit similar to welfare, you shoud consider the DBPP the same. We agree here. There is little choice on who makes the investment decisions and the decisions are vunerable to interference from the government. So again, why have a second plan to do this when welfare already does this? BTW, CPP targets all who have worked and contributed regardless of their poverty status. You may well be right. It remains to be seen, but I agree it is a risk, hence my position that the governmetn should stay out of running pension programs.

To be honest I share your skeptiism, however the CPP investment board, is made up of investing professionals not government bureaucrats. So far their investment performance is meodicre. 1Q 2006 2.4% 2005 8.5% 2004 17.6% CPPIB Results The board is similar in nature to pension boards such as the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan and the Quebec Teachers Pension Plan. Both Pension plans have done pretty well over the years. It remains to be seen if the CPPIB does as well. The forced nature of contributions is no different than a company pension plan which requires you to contribute. Would you consider that a tax as well? Personally I don't. I can get a yearly statement of my CPP contributions and my expected payout. In my mind that makes the analogy closest to a pension plan. There is already a system for poor people's handouts, its called welfare. Why create another for essentially the same purpose? I personally don't consider CPP to be analogous to welfare for a couple of reasons. 1. The payout depends upon contributions in. 2. The payout is independant of the payees wealth or income. I can find no evidence that 10 years residency is a requirement for CPP. I know it is for OAS. OAS is basiclly welfare and doesn't require any contributions unlike CPP.

Fundamentally the issue is whether there are intrinsic diferences between men and women. If you accept that there are innate differences beyond just the physical, then you would have to logically accept that some roles are better suited for men and some for women because of these differences. Now these are are generalizations and there will be men or women exceptions in every case. So why is this a big deal? As long as barriers to entry to a profession are relatively equal, there will be a natural migration of one gender to certain professions. So what? Let those migrations occur natually and you will have the best suited people for the role.