Question on CPP

[August1991]

A system that invests prudently under clear government rules with an arms length investment board? (You know, like the CPP)

Government rules?

Clear? Prudent? Government?

msj, I fear that you and I don't live in the same universe.

Politicians change the rules of government. Government pension payments change, and taxes change - according to democratic whim. The CPP is not an actuarial scheme. It's political, as it should be.

If civilised, we as a society take care of ourselves.

Edited January 10, 2009 by August1991

[msj]

Government rules?

Clear? Prudent? Government?

msj, I fear that you and I don't live in the same universe.

Politicians change the rules of government. Government pension payments change, and taxes change - according to democratic whim. The CPP is not an actuarial scheme. It's political, as it should be.

If civilised, we as a society take care of ourselves.

Sure, one day something will happen and some politician will get his/her greedy hands on the CPP - nothing is forever.

Once again, I have linked to the CPPIB and the CPP rules many times - it is difficult for politicians to get their hands on the CPP due to the rules (2/3 provincial consent etc).

The board is arms length from government - these are not some screw the dog bureaucrats we are talking about.

The CPP is an actuarial scheme - it was planned that way with the changes during the mid 1990's and this is why it is hands off for the politicians.

It is certainly more hands off than if we had some kind of plan like so many Italians ended up with - it is far easier for politicians to say that the CPP is arms length from government and invests for the long term so there is no need for the government to step in as compared to some kind of individual scheme where each Canadian who foolishly panics and loses money then writes his/her MP and demands a taxpayer paid bail out of his/her individual pension plan (just like what is happening in Italy now).

[August1991]

The board is arms length from government - these are not some screw the dog bureaucrats we are talking about.

The CPP is an actuarial scheme - it was planned that way with the changes during the mid 1990's and this is why it is hands off for the politicians.

Naive.

msj, you don't understand politicians, nor government bureaucrats.

On occasion, you may be right - but you are naive about life.

[msj]

Naive.

msj, you don't understand politicians, nor government bureaucrats.

On occasion, you may be right - but you are naive about life.

Fine argument there August.

I'll add it to your others regarding the recession in the US and Canada....

[August1991]

Fine argument there August.

I'll add it to your others regarding the recession in the US and Canada....

How serious has the recession (depression) been?

Nevertheless, I'll agree with you that we should question the competence of government regulators, no? So obviously, we should hire more government regulators, no?

Edited January 10, 2009 by August1991

[msj]

How serious has the recession (depression) been?

Nevertheless, I'll agree with you that we should question the competence of government regulators, no?

I like how you always rephrase the question to make yourself appear competent. Oh, it's not a recession, then when it in fact is a recession, it's not a "serious recession" etc....

This would be a clever ploy if one had no memory or no ability to go read your silly words on such matters.

But, back to the point:

Of course, we should question the competence of anyone we are dealing with.

Thankfully this happened in the 1990's and resulted in a pretty good system for the CPP.

The CPPIB is transparent - go look up their financial statements and their mandate.

Once again, better to have an arms length professional body that is out of reach of politicians than panicky Canadians writing their MP's to use taxpayer money to bail out their failed investments (like Italy).

It really is that simple.