Growing Seniors Population Spell Trouble

[Renegade]

You should do some reading up on the history of the Canada Health Act. It was never intended to be an insurance plan, many provinces don't even have premiums.

Call it "taxes" doesn't make it any less of a premium. It is irrelevant what it is intended as. It is an insurance system because it has the characteristics of insurance. You can pretend it is not as much as you like.

Good luck on that one.

OAS was created as a universal program too. That too changed.

How decent of you.

Thanks

Again, it is not an insurance plan, it is a healthcare plan. You can buy a supplementary insurance plan if you want one.

Your claim doesn't make it so. I have showed you the definition of insurance. You don't demonstrate one iota of evidence to contradict that it is insurance. Regardless of whether we agree that it is an insurance plan or not, my point is it should be run more like insurance. BTW, even the goverment calls it insurance:

Canada's national health

insurance

program, often referred to as "Medicare", is designed to ensure that all residents have reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services, on a prepaid basis.

Canada's Health Care System (Medicare)

Who plays God?

Multiple parties have a say and play "God".

The patient must consent to the procedure and thus plays "God"

The doctor must consent to perform the procedure and thus plays "God"

The taxpaper must agree to fund the procedure and thus plays "God"

A medical procedure should only be peformed with the consent of all three parties.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Renegade

[Smallc]

So if someone needs a heart transplant, we should have a referendum?

[Renegade]

So if someone needs a heart transplant, we should have a referendum?

Yep. Except we call it an election

[Oleg Bach]

Better start building up those pecks and practice taking yourself in an out of the bath tub unassisted.

[Smallc]

Yep. Except we call it an election

Well if that's what we call it, Canadians seem to disagree with you.

[William Ashley]

Not sure I understand. What a government promises to pay for is not an indefinite contract. As much as I don't like it, they can change policies at any time.

My parents are nearing retirement age - my Mom has already stopped working and is living off her savings already. Both my parents health is deteriorating. My father who had a mix of desk and physical work has arthritis and after 40 years of drinking coffee pretty much daily to keep going you can tell it is starting to effect his health - they both go to sleep just after the evening, usually. They are expecting to have the money they paid into to retire, and they are using this to plan their retirement. While they have some savings, without a subsistence from the programs they have paid into for the last 40+ years, they wouldn't be able to really even live, even with their declining health. Both of them worked expecting a return in their environment based upon the policies they paid into. Suddently changing or removing that would not only be unfair to them, but unfair to other people like them, those who had relatively low incomes their entire lives. My father served breifly in the military, factory work, ambulance work, and security to name a few, and he pretty much worked his entire life - while he didn't necisarily make a lot of money, he performed a service to society much like my mother who worked mostly in the service industry - this while feeding four children. We didn't have much and they still don't have much, and I bet they aren't much unlike the many other low middle income families out there who spent their life paying down a mortgage putting food on the table and having a little left over after the bills came in. The one thing they did was pay their taxes for over 40 years, so depriving them of a managable retirement - and I'm not talking one in excess but one that they can survive or even talk about removing that from the many out there who lived most of their lives in lack just ain't right - even 5 years ahead they are budgeting based on the future.

The point is any plan can't change the past, it should be effective from a given time, and for those changes to take place at that time, Eg. you want to change the retirement scheme make it effective the date it changes but only on the portion of change from that point on, not 10 years ago or 20 years ago. It isn't right, and it is a form of deception and manipulation, Policy is a social contract - if suddenly the government just said no more EI but people paid into it, it would be a form of fraud - saying they will get a service for paying into it. CPP is like that.

again, I'm confused as to what you mean.

Taxes should be invested for promised programs that effect the future.

You can't go up and just spend the CPP money on buying GM, because it is owed to the people who paid into it.

The same is true of EI, you can't just go and spend the EI program money if it is suppose to provide for people who paid into it.

Not at all. The seniors should hear and be aware of the impact that they cause.

Not only this but they should help with a solution.

Based upon what, do you conclude is that this is the "only working answer"

Capital needs to be freed up. I've seen a few studies on the issue. My belief is that the debt needs to be paid off before 2020 when the ratio shifts to 4:1 - there are other funding issues and social crises that are set to develop between 2020 and 2060. An aging population of 70+ year olds will only be able to serve in an intellectual capacity, and potentially home based computer, and some habits of a large group of them will not embrace this, and do not generally expect to perform any regular function other than bowel movements and dinner. Health issues to a point will be issued until 2030 or latter when medical science might start to address these more pro-actively. So for some a second chance might exist - however I think a bulk of these people may not be able to survive to that point. The question then when medical science can indefinitely extend people lives through gene therapy accessible to the public that the real issue of pensions comes into play as "questionable". But that is years off. The problem that exists right now is two fold - keeping them alive, and paying for them. A class solution isn't one that will necessarily serve the public interest. There are already income caps in place for funding on pensions.

Not really. It is only if you consider clawback of benefits which only seniors are entitled to, as a tax rate increase. If you remove the benefits to begin with, you will not have a situation where "tax rates actually increase in retirement"

Claw backs are dastardly and evil. Cheating people out of what is owed to them isn't an honuorable option.

Edited February 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[Renegade]

The point is any plan can't change the past, it should be effective from a given time, and for those changes to take place at that time, Eg. you want to change the retirement scheme make it effective the date it changes but only on the portion of change from that point on, not 10 years ago or 20 years ago. It isn't right, and it is a form of deception and manipulation, Policy is a social contract - if suddenly the government just said no more EI but people paid into it, it would be a form of fraud - saying they will get a service for paying into it. CPP is like that.

While it would be wonderful if the government signed contracts which they are forced to live up to, the reality is that they do not. The government can (and has) changed EI at its whim. The government can (and has) changed CPP at its whim. It can and does change tax policy at its whim. You may call it fraud and deception, but really you have no recourse short of revolution.

Taxes should be invested for promised programs that effect the future.

You can't go up and just spend the CPP money on buying GM, because it is owed to the people who paid into it.

The same is true of EI, you can't just go and spend the EI program money if it is suppose to provide for people who paid into it.

Unfortunately there are very little constraints on what a government can or cannot do with money they raise even if you don't like it. That may be precisely the reason why we have gotten into some of the fiscal issues we find ourselves in.

Claw backs are dastardly and evil. Cheating people out of what is owed to them isn't an honuorable option.

How do you determine what is owed to them?

[Renegade]

Well if that's what we call it, Canadians seem to disagree with you.

Quite right. Most people would rather live in the present and wear blinders to consequences they would rather not face. Sooner or later they will have no choice but to face those consequences.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Renegade

[Bonam]

William, CPP and EI are just taxes, money the government forcibly takes from you in exchange for promises of services that they may or may not provide and that you may or may not want or need. Any money paid to the government is as good as gone.

[William Ashley]

While it would be wonderful if the government signed contracts which they are forced to live up to, the reality is that they do not. The government can (and has) changed EI at its whim. The government can (and has) changed CPP at its whim. It can and does change tax policy at its whim. You may call it fraud and deception, but really you have no recourse short of revolution.

My initial response wouldn't be flattering to you. Fraud is fraud. Fact is, just cause as you say it has been done before, doesn't make it right.

Unfortunately there are very little constraints on what a government can or cannot do with money they raise even if you don't like it. That may be precisely the reason why we have gotten into some of the fiscal issues we find ourselves in.

Fraud is fraud, and it is a criminal offense. If government takes 1000$'s from you and says it is to invest in a program outlined, then takes the 1000$'s and spends it on a hotel room - and doesn't provide the program they said they would, it is fraud.

The same goes to CPP - if you pay into a pension plan, then that pension fund is spent on a buying military equipment - it is fraud. Not only is it illegal, but it is something that should see the person responsible thrown in jail for.

How do you determine what is owed to them?

What they were told they would get for what they gave. Contract is contract, law is a form of contract.

It is called "misappropriation" and is a violation of parliamentry law. Monies can only be raised with consent of parliament for a given consented purpose. You can't take 100 billion dollars then spend it on something totally different - it is illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misappropriation

Edited February 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[Renegade]

My initial response wouldn't be flattering to you. Fraud is fraud. Fact is, just cause as you say it has been done before, doesn't make it right.

Fraud is fraud, and it is a criminal offense. If government takes 1000$'s from you and says it is to invest in a program outlined, then takes the 1000$'s and spends it on a hotel room - and doesn't provide the program they said they would, it is fraud.

The same goes to CPP - if you pay into a pension plan, then that pension fund is spent on a buying military equipment - it is fraud. Not only is it illegal, but it is something that should see the person responsible thrown in jail for.

What they were told they would get for what they gave. Contract is contract, law is a form of contract.

You are simply imposing your own morality onto the government. The government has no legal obligation to live up to promises it made, let alone any legal obligation previous governments made.

Here is one example: Breach of contract

TORONTO - On Monday, the Ontario Superior Court and Canadian voters will witness legal history. For the first time, taxpayer protection legislation and a politician's election promise will come before a Canadian court of law. The case is that of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) and John Williamson, and Greg Sorbara, Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario government.

The submission is available here: Factum of the Applicants

Unfortunately for your argument, the court found in favour of the government.

You have claimed that it is "fraud", "illegal" and a "criminal offense". For it to be a "criminal offense" a criminal law needs to have been broken. Please cite which law has been broken? Please cite some cases where people have been charged under this law.

It is called "misappropriation" and is a violation of parliamentry law. Monies can only be raised with consent of parliament for a given consented purpose. You can't take 100 billion dollars then spend it on something totally different - it is illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misappropriation

William, even your own link doesn't support your position. From the definition you provided:

In law, misappropriation is the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person

for one's own use or other unauthorized purpose

, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person's estate or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another's assets (a fiduciary duty). It is a felony, a crime punishable by a prison sentence.

For it to be misappropriation funds need to be used for personal use or "unauthorized purpose". Since the parliment passes a budget, whatever passes in the budget becomes authorized and thus is not misappropriation. There is no legal requirement that the budget contain provisions for promises made to the public. In short the only financial "contract" between the government and the people is the budget, and the duration of the contract is usually one year. After that a new "contract" is set in place. If you don't like it, your only recourse is to elect another government.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Renegade

[Wilber]

Call it "taxes" doesn't make it any less of a premium. It is irrelevant what it is intended as. It is an insurance system because it has the characteristics of insurance. You can pretend it is not as much as you like.

In that case, I guess you could call national defense an insurance program as well. You only call healthcare an insurance program because you want it to be.

OAS was created as a universal program too. That too changed.

How so?

Your claim doesn't make it so. I have showed you the definition of insurance. You don't demonstrate one iota of evidence to contradict that it is insurance. Regardless of whether we agree that it is an insurance plan or not, my point is it should be run more like insurance. BTW, even the government calls it insurance:

Canada's national health insurance program, often referred to as "Medicare", is designed to ensure that all residents have reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services, on a prepaid basis.

And yet universality is what the basic difference between it and the system to the south of us. The reason for its being. You are not about modifying the present system but changing it back into what is was before with the only difference being government run. We don't need government to do that.

Multiple parties have a say and play "God".

The patient must consent to the procedure and thus plays "God"

The doctor must consent to perform the procedure and thus plays "God"

The taxpaper must agree to fund the procedure and thus plays "God"

A medical procedure should only be peformed with the consent of all three parties.

I thought only US Democrats wanted death panels because that is what you are talking about. Besides, doctors take an oath. What if they refuse to go along? Do you want some faceless bureaucrat deciding whether you live or die based on his bottom line. You frighten me.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Wilber

[eyeball]

You are simply imposing your own morality onto the government. The government has no legal obligation to live up to promises it made, let alone any legal obligation previous governments made.

By the same token the government imposes it's will onto people. People have no moral obligation to accept that imposition even though the government may have the legal right to do so.

[William Ashley]

You are simply imposing your own morality onto the government.

I'm not imposing anything, I'm stating an opinion. It is great when you start a rebuttal by attacking the person rather than the subject. This shows off the top it is pure rhetorical bs in this post and little more.

The government has no legal obligation to live up to promises it made

It very much does on budgeted expenditures.

let alone any legal obligation previous governments made.

Your knowledge of the subject material shows how little you know about parliament.

Here is one example: Breach of contract

TORONTO - On Monday, the Ontario Superior Court and Canadian voters will witness legal history. For the first time, taxpayer protection legislation and a politician's election promise will come before a Canadian court of law. The case is that of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) and John Williamson, and Greg Sorbara, Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario government.

I wasn't speaking of election promises, I was talking about allocated funds, and legislation.

The submission is available here: Factum of the Applicants

Unfortunately for your argument, the court found in favour of the government.

Unfortuantely you are saying my apple is an orange and you have no clue what you are talking about. Painting someone elses picture and calling it myself.

You have claimed that it is "fraud", "illegal" and a "criminal offense". For it to be a "criminal offense" a criminal law needs to have been broken. Please cite which law has been broken? Please cite some cases where people have been charged under this law.

There have been a few notable cases when this happened. People got jailtime over it.

William, even your own link doesn't support your position. From the definition you provided:

In law, misappropriation is the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person

for one's own use or other unauthorized purpose

, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person's estate or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another's assets (a fiduciary duty). It is a felony, a crime punishable by a prison sentence.

What is your point, and how doesn't it fit my explanation. Using someones tax dollars to buy a car when you need to give them a pension but don't is illegal. Wake up you are talking like someone who had their head submerged in gasoline for a year.

For it to be misappropriation funds need to be used for personal use or "unauthorized purpose".

Yes.

Since the parliment passes a budget, whatever passes in the budget becomes authorized and thus is not misappropriation.

Yes but what you are neglecting is that budgets are set many times over the course of something and monies are put into specific uses over that time. Monies put to those uses cannot be redistributed to other usages without misappropriating those funds. Parliament can raise monies, it cannot spend monies raised for another purpose. That is misappropriation.

There is no legal requirement that the budget contain provisions for promises made to the public.

If monies are raised and budgetted then yes they are legally required, it is the the original function and bounds of parliament.

In short the only financial "contract" between the government and the people is the budget

No they are also bound by other laws. Some of them bills, and others constitutional, and others.

and the duration of the contract is usually one year. After that a new "contract" is set in place. If you don't like it, your only recourse is to elect another government.

Unfortunately you are mistaken, budgets span many years in allocations.

At the least they would have to rebate the funds raised to each person with interest for loses. I am certain though that monies raised for a given purpose can lawfully be used for another. EI and CPP are very specifically raised for those purposes. Although I do question the act itself I would consider it a social contract and a form of fraud to not provide the service after people paid for it for 45+ years. The plan has existed since 1966 - and funds should of been allocated into it since that date - if those funds were spent on other things then it would of been misappropriation by any government that used those funds for another purpose, because they were raised for a specific purpose. Although you gotta really ask, why you would offer a plan that only requires about 4 years worth of benefits, is this the assumption that most people will die by the age of 70? Not true. The plan is far too generous, but it is the plan that was sold, so it is the plan that needs to be provided.

Edited February 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[Renegade]

In that case, I guess you could call national defense an insurance program as well. You only call healthcare an insurance program because you want it to be.

I would call national defense an insurance program if it fit the definition of an insurance program, and it probably does. It is a system which is generally not to be used unless some unforseen events occur. It is really not relevant whether I want to label healthcare as insurance and you don't. What I am contending is that it should be run like insurance.

How so?

Clawbacks ended universality.

And yet universality is what the basic difference between it and the system to the south of us. The reason for its being. You are not about modifying the present system but changing it back into what is was before with the only difference being government run. We don't need government to do that.

There are many differences. Universality is just one. Single-payor is yet another difference. Simply because a feature exist in the US is not sufficient reason to reject it. My contention is not to compare our system to the US, my suggestions is to change the system so that it is fiscally sustainable.

I thought only US Democrats wanted death panels because that is what you are talking about. Besides, doctors take an oath. What if they refuse to go along? Do you want some faceless bureaucrat deciding whether you live or die based on his bottom line. You frighten me.

So what if doctors refuse to go along? Unless they wish to work for free and provide their own facilities they are subject to state funding. I'm not suggesting that doctors can't live up to whatever their oath calls for. I'm suggesting that the taxpayer, through its proxy the state, doesn't necessarily have to fund it.

A "faceless bureaucrat" can make rules on whether or not the state will fund a medical procedure. If I am not haappy with that funding decision, I should have the option of raising funds on my own. I can live with frightening you and others, because we are headed to a frightening situation.

[ToadBrother]

The proof is in the outcome. Our system has been in place for many years, yet medical costs keep esclating. Leaving it to doctors and patients alone is not sufficient to contain costs. The demographic shift will only amplify this problem.

And intruding any other party into the mix raises serious ethical questions. What you're proposing is that non-medical aspects of the medical system will now essentially have a veto over doctors. In effect it ceases to be a medical system.

Let's say I have a serious illness and I'm on the wrong side of the line? Is there any appeal? Or is the declaration of some non-medical bean counter now the ultimate authority on my life or death?

I'm smelling a Libertarian here. Would that sum up your general economic position in a nutshell?

[ToadBrother]

A "faceless bureaucrat" can make rules on whether or not the state will fund a medical procedure. If I am not haappy with that funding decision, I should have the option of raising funds on my own. I can live with frightening you and others, because we are headed to a frightening situation.

I knew it. A Libertarian.

[Renegade]

I'm not imposing anything, I'm stating an opinion. It is great when you start a rebuttal by attacking the person rather than the subject. This shows off the top it is pure rhetorical bs in this post and little more.

Ok. I thought you were stating fact. My mistake. But where you call something "criminal" or "illegal" this is a statement of fact. I have asked you to cite proof of this and you have been unable to do so. It doesn't appear that your "opinion" of illegality has any facts to back it up.

It very much does on budgeted expenditures.

Great, then we are on the same page.

Your knowledge of the subject material shows how little you know about parliament.

Then take this opportunity to show how wrong I am, yet you show nothing.

I wasn't speaking of election promises, I was talking about allocated funds, and legislation.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Yes government has to follow budgets, and legislation, however what is to stop the government from changing legislation and creating new legislation.

There have been a few notable cases when this happened. People got jailtime over it.

Ok I'll bite. How about some cites to the cases you reference?

What is your point, and how doesn't it fit my explanation. Using someones tax dollars to buy a car when you need to give them a pension but don't is illegal. Wake up you are talking like someone who had their head submerged in gasoline for a year.

CPP has constraints on how the money is used. CPP is operated as an arms-lenght organization. CPP operation is covered by legislation drafted by the government. What stops the government from changing the legislation so that CPP rules are changed? It can change payouts, it can change retirement ages, and has done so.

EI is similar. EI funds may be earmarked for unemployment, however by changing the rules the government can use the funding for other purposes. You can see for yourselves that courts have ruled for the government in its use of EI for debt reduction and other general spending. No need to refund EI surplus: Top court. You may not like it, and certainly I don't, but the court hasn't said that it is illegal.

Yes but what you are neglecting is that budgets are set many times over the course of something and monies are put into specific uses over that time. Monies put to those uses cannot be redistributed to other usages without misappropriating those funds. Parliament can raise monies, it cannot spend monies raised for another purpose. That is misappropriation.

Yes, budgets usually allocate for programs over multiple years, but generally the government also sets the constraints by which it can change those funding commitments in future budgets. Spending priorities change all the time. For example, Harper scrapped the accord to spend 5.1 Billion on aboriginals. Is he in jail yet?

At the least they would have to rebate the funds raised to each person with interest for loses. I am certain though that monies raised for a given purpose can lawfully be used for another. EI and CPP are very specifically raised for those purposes. Although I do question the act itself I would consider it a social contract and a form of fraud to not provide the service after people paid for it for 45+ years. The plan has existed since 1966 - and funds should of been allocated into it since that date - if those funds were spent on other things then it would of been misappropriation by any government that used those funds for another purpose, because they were raised for a specific purpose. Although you gotta really ask, why you would offer a plan that only requires about 4 years worth of benefits, is this the assumption that most people will die by the age of 70? Not true. The plan is far too generous, but it is the plan that was sold, so it is the plan that needs to be provided.

Yes that is your "opinion", however that you consider it a "social contract" doesn't bind the government to obey it. I have shown a couple of examples of this. You have yet to show one.

I accept that you have an opinion, and personally I would agree with you that perhaps the constitution should be change to prevent government from changing the "rules of the game", however what I am contending, is that in the current state, the constitution doesn't support this as courts have ruled.

[Renegade]

By the same token the government imposes it's will onto people. People have no moral obligation to accept that imposition even though the government may have the legal right to do so.

No they have no moral obligation to accept the imposition, only a legal obligation. So, unless the people have the power to enforce their moral obligations, they will likely have to sucumb to their legal obligations.

[Renegade]

And intruding any other party into the mix raises serious ethical questions. What you're proposing is that non-medical aspects of the medical system will now essentially have a veto over doctors. In effect it ceases to be a medical system.

Let's say I have a serious illness and I'm on the wrong side of the line? Is there any appeal? Or is the declaration of some non-medical bean counter now the ultimate authority on my life or death?

Yes I think non-medical aspects should have a veto on funding.

If you are on the wrong side of the line, your appeal is to go raise funding by other means than state-supplied funds.

I'm smelling a Libertarian here. Would that sum up your general economic position in a nutshell?

Yes.

[ToadBrother]

Yes I think non-medical aspects should have a veto on funding.

If you are on the wrong side of the line, your appeal is to go raise funding by other means than state-supplied funds.

A solid Libertian position. "You're free to die, just make it cheap."

Yes.

You do realize, I trust, that no one is going to listen to you, no government is going to take up your ideas. Libertarianism is faery land politico nonsense, up there with anarchism in the book of goofy ideas that people try to formulate.

[Renegade]

A solid Libertian position. "You're free to die, just make it cheap."

Actually, "You're free to die on your own dime."

You do realize, I trust, that no one is going to listen to you, no government is going to take up your ideas. Libertarianism is faery land politico nonsense, up there with anarchism in the book of goofy ideas that people try to formulate.

The arguments have a solid rationale. People don't accept the arguments because they are blinded by self-interest.

[ToadBrother]

Actually, "You're free to die on your own dime."

The arguments have a solid rationale. People don't accept the arguments because they are blinded by self-interest.

Look. Here's the reality. Libertarianism is a dead political ideology. We can argue a bit as to whether it was ever put into practice (the pre-Civil War US certainly had some strong Libertarian leanings), but at the end of the day, no one could sell it. No human society, primitive or advanced, has ever worked that way, and I suspect none would for very long.

I'm not even sure why you're even here debating this. Unless you're kind of a wishy-washy Libertarian type, I can't imagine you being in favor of public health care at all, so to some degree I think you're just be disingenuous. But it doesn't matter, because the Canadian voter won't stand for it. It may mean higher taxes, at least for a while, until the baby boomer bubble is over (so we've got probably another 20-30 years of grief here), but Libertarian health care (which does not generally translate into a pro-public system kind of ideology) ain't never gonna happen. If the US has a big problem, it's that it wants to publicly espouse Libertarian notions of health care while simultaneously trying to find ways to a put some sort of universalism in by the back door.

Edited February 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[William Ashley]

Ok. I thought you were stating fact. My mistake. But where you call something "criminal" or "illegal" this is a statement of fact. I have asked you to cite proof of this and you have been unable to do so. It doesn't appear that your "opinion" of illegality has any facts to back it up.

Can't you read, misappropriation and fraud are illegal and criminal acts.

Then take this opportunity to show how wrong I am, yet you show nothing.

Why educate someone who lacks morals?

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Yes government has to follow budgets, and legislation, however what is to stop the government from changing legislation and creating new legislation.

It can be done to a certain extent, but my assertions were in regard to programs that were funds directly raised such as EI and CPP and programs that have had funds allocations budgetted into them. Other items are moot and that is what setting a budget is for. But if programs are tabled and not paid for it is irresponsibility of the government for not meeting the long term plan for those programs, and that government should be shown the door and a more responsible government able to balance the books put in its place. Giving the banks and major industries free money is not a responsible thing to do when you can't pay for the retirement funds of your citizens.

Ok I'll bite. How about some cites to the cases you reference?

See the comment above about educating the immoral.

CPP has constraints on how the money is used. CPP is operated as an arms-lenght organization. CPP operation is covered by legislation drafted by the government. What stops the government from changing the legislation so that CPP rules are changed? It can change payouts, it can change retirement ages, and has done so.

Funds are already paid into it, it would be misappropriation to use those funds for a purpose other than they were raised for.

EI is similar. EI funds may be earmarked for unemployment, however by changing the rules the government can use the funding for other purposes. You can see for yourselves that courts have ruled for the government in its use of EI for debt reduction and other general spending. No need to refund EI surplus: Top court. You may not like it, and certainly I don't, but the court hasn't said that it is illegal.

It would be misappropriation to use EI funds for another purpose.

Yes, budgets usually allocate for programs over multiple years, but generally the government also sets the constraints by which it can change those funding commitments in future budgets. Spending priorities change all the time. For example, Harper scrapped the accord to spend 5.1 Billion on aboriginals. Is he in jail yet?

Tax raised through some methods such as income tax and corporate tax and other government funds are not the same as funds which

are raised for a direct purpose such as EI or CPP. Budgets can be altered for "unspent funds"

The point I am making is that it is fraud to illicit funds for one purpose then use them for another purpose. You are trying to steer my comments away from the very percise point I was making. If you raise funds for a specific purpose then the funds have to go to that purpose. Funds that are allocated as raised through general taxes which are not raised for a specific purpose can be allocated as they are available, unspent project funds can be reallocated in a budget - but must be approved. The government cannot just allocate 60 billion for buying action plan signs then give the money to companies that they support instead - bad example legally they can't allocate funds for provincial transfers then use the funds to buy their donors new houses. Hopefully the point is clear. Raising funds for a direct purpose and raising general funding is slightly different.

If a government isn't responsible enough to insure that current legislation is provided for it is being irresponsible and the governor general should oust them if the commons doesn't. It is failure of performance. While you can say legislation can be changed, you can't operate under that premise as it is irresponsible, you need to govern based upon existing laws, not potential future laws.

Yes that is your "opinion", however that you consider it a "social contract" doesn't bind the government to obey it.

In all premises of good governance it does actually. If we arn't speaking opinion here what are we talking about. People share opinions. Facts in dispute are not facts, they are opinion.

I have shown a couple of examples of this. You have yet to show one.

I'm not wasting my time, if you don't know the law learn it, but I am under no obligation to teach you. give me some money and maybe a deal can be arranged.

I accept that you have an opinion, and personally I would agree with you that perhaps the constitution should be change to prevent government from changing the "rules of the game", however what I am contending, is that in the current state, the constitution doesn't support this as courts have ruled.

Some funds are allocated, some legislation exists. While you can purport that legislation can be changed, there are some things that could be changed and some things that wouldn't be something a government ought to do. It has nothing to do with the constitution.

Edited February 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[waldo]

The arguments have a solid rationale. People don't accept the arguments because they are blinded by self-interest.

as a practical extension of your stated arguments, solid rationale... is there a successful working model that you can point to, one with measurable and highlighted results that align with your stated financial sustainability goal?