Pension Reform

[Topaz]

The Finance Minister was on CBC and when Evan asked the minister about people NOT having the money to enroll in his new pension plan, the minsiter came out and said that it was life style that cause people NOT to have retirement pension. Do you agree? in the video, the question was asked 6:18 into the questioning. Should the government have a program for people who now work part time or people who can'r even find a job, how do we protect these people from welfare in their senior years? http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1704968176

[nicky10013]

The Finance Minister was on CBC and when Evan asked the minister about people NOT having the money to enroll in his new pension plan, the minsiter came out and said that it was life style that cause people NOT to have retirement pension. Do you agree? in the video, the question was asked 6:18 into the questioning. Should the government have a program for people who now work part time or people who can'r even find a job, how do we protect these people from welfare in their senior years? http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1704968176

Hahaha lifestyle. Because living paycheque to paycheque and still not making ends meet is a lifestyle.

[Oleg Bach]

It's unecceptable that the super rich elite get to use public and private pension to lever huge business deals...pensions are a savings account - they belong to the person that contributes - There is NO need for reform...what there is a need for is for these jerks that think they own the people to stop also thinking they own the peoples money - Gangsters of old used to always run off with the pension money...and for some reason..they are still at it and no one complains...personally I have no pension...and years ago I used to work with lawyer who worked in the area of pensions for the government..he said twenty years ago that the pensions eventually would cease to exist...so you wonder how this decline in the amount takes place - It is simply used up by those who are NOT the owners of the money. Plainly said - YOUR pension if not in full but in part will be stolen by rich old bastards who believe YOU are their property - that YOU are chattel.

[M.Dancer]

Hahaha lifestyle. Because living paycheque to paycheque and still not making ends meet is a lifestyle.

Correct. And chosing not to upgrade your skills to get a higher paying job is also a lifestyle.

[William Ashley]

The Finance Minister was on CBC and when Evan asked the minister about people NOT having the money to enroll in his new pension plan, the minsiter came out and said that it was life style that cause people NOT to have retirement pension. Do you agree?

1/2 of that is the case the other is the resources. A substantial number of people live under the poverty line. While it is true people could resort to crime to save money through stealing from the rich, I am not so sure Mr. Flaherty is suggesting the poor organize into robin' hoods. I could be wrong and perhaps that right there is the merry men he is seeking. Is he more of a sheriff of nottingham to you or a little john or other?

in the video, the question was asked 6:18 into the questioning. Should the government have a program for people who now work part time or people who can't even find a job, how do we protect these people from welfare in their senior years? http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1704968176

I completely support a private/public divide - where the public program is self organizing and self supporting - or generating of revenue - concepts like food co-ops, quarries, agroforestry projects, etc.. you know labour to the real source of generation, and where possible production of some or all government materials to reduce government expenses, and thus allow the dollar to go to other needs. I don't think there should be any qualification other than working. the government ought to have the land for these projects, then it is just people, - or for instance private doners willing to provide the tools needed for the work untilt he project was self funding. If peoples basic needs are provided - food water shelter and clothing - it gives them that money to save for retirement or live a little.

I think this may be a provincial domain though. Programs like ontario works just waste peoples time on non Return on investment work projects with little cost reduction value. (it is a program lite)

I think where it goes is that if the private sector doesn't provide jobs the public sector has to inflate the economy and provide for the havenots (but a large emphasis on export markets needs to be focused on to conterweight the inflation with foreign capital as a deflator) it is a protection against non productivity and drive efficiency.

Telling people to steal from the rich simply isn't a solution as it could drive up policing costs and prison costs. This would just divert pension funds to jails. While that could provide for free retirement, I'm not so certain it is the retirement many poor of today and tomorrow are looking for. So the robin' hoods plan may be a little ill conceived if it is done on a populist basis. Worse yet the rich may not like it either afterall who likes getting stolden from, not I.

The "productivity measure" based on self sufficiency and export markets (locking return capital capacity) is key to "excess for retirement".

You need a storage mechanism to insure the stores are there.

It isn't complex economics.

You can't depend on any wealth but the wealth you want though. As wealth may vary in terms of what its trade value is in the futrue - even more so currency

(you can guess on this though) but you need to keep as close to what you want as possible to get what you want - otherwise it is a gambit even if a good gambit.

For instance wineries today may sell 40 year old in retirement, etc.. is 40 year old wine what people want.. if so.. make a winery for retirement. You want silver and gold in your retirement - get silver and gold today.

How long does corned beef last and powdered milk? Hopefully you get the point.

Betting on the future without wagering on the future doesn't provide any return - unless the person who wagered pays out.

BTW the public program already exists - it is called the constitution act 1867 (formerly bna).

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1867.html

Here are two major issues to consider:

It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.

POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT

Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada 91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

1. Repealed.

1A. The Public Debt and Property.

2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

2A. Unemployment insurance.

3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation. (levy is a system)

4. The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit.

5. Postal Service.

6. The Census and Statistics.

7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.

8. The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada.

9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.

10. Navigation and Shipping.

11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.

12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.

13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.

14. Currency and Coinage.

15. Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money.

16. Savings Banks.

17. Weights and Measures.

18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.

19. Interest.

20. Legal Tender.

21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency.

22. Patents of Invention and Discovery.

23. Copyrights.

24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.

25. Naturalization and Aliens.

26. Marriage and Divorce.

27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.

28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries.

29. Such Classes of Subjects as are expressly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES

Subjects of exclusive Provincial Legislation 92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

1. Repealed.

2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.

3. The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province

4. The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.

5. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon. - note how this doesn't exist at the federal level - what does this say about federal lands.....

6. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.

7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.

8. Municipal Institutions in the Province.

9. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes.

10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:

(a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:

( Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:

except © Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.

11. The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.

12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.

15. The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.

16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

NON-RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES,

FORESTRY RESOURCES AND ELECTRICAL ENERGY

Laws respecting non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources and electrical energy 92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to

(a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;

( development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and

© development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.

Export from provinces of resources (2) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the export from the province to another part of Canada of the primary production from non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for discrimination in prices or in supplies exported to another part of Canada.

Authority of Parliament (3) Nothing in subsection (2) derogates from the authority of Parliament to enact laws in relation to the matters referred to in that subsection and, where such a law of Parliament and a law of a province conflict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict.

Taxation of resources (4) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of

(a) non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the primary production therefrom, and

( sites and facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy and the production therefrom,

whether or not such production is exported in whole or in part from the province, but such laws may not authorize or provide for taxation that differentiates between production exported to another part of Canada and production not exported from the province.

"Primary production" (5) The expression "primary production" has the meaning assigned by the Sixth Schedule.

Existing powers or rights (6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5) derogates from any powers or rights that a legislature or government of a province had immediately before the coming into force of this section.

Edited December 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[Zachary Young]

It comes down to this - the decision to save or spend should be entirely up the individual. You may all be little children needing the government to tell you how to spend your money but I am not and I would appreciate it if you left me out of an idiot schemes regarding my income. We don't need a public pension system and I certainly don't want to entrust my retirement to the government. I will look after it myself. Anyway I think it is fraudulent to say that we can even have a pension system considering how massively our government is in debt and how this is clearly only going to get worse in the future. It's a ponzi scheme and people my age who pay into a pension plan have absolutely zero chance of getting anything out of it. I for one do not want to spend my life paying for your excesses. Stop looking for government handouts, you lousy bums.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It comes down to this - the decision to save or spend should be entirely up the individual. You may all be little children needing the government to tell you how to spend your money but I am not and I would appreciate it if you left me out of an idiot schemes regarding my income. We don't need a public pension system and I certainly don't want to entrust my retirement to the government. I will look after it myself. Anyway I think it is fraudulent to say that we can even have a pension system considering how massively our government is in debt and how this is clearly only going to get worse in the future. It's a ponzi scheme and people my age who pay into a pension plan have absolutely zero chance of getting anything out of it. I for one do not want to spend my life paying for your excesses. Stop looking for government handouts, you lousy bums.

The government dips into everyones paycheck in the form of withholding taxes. Get over it, it ain't gonna change anytime soon. How else can the feds cover their loan payments but through some form of taxation. Pensions are merely the tip of the iceberg, and just between you and me, those are your own dollars invested in CPP. Its already your money if you paid into it, so why cut it off or have you forfeit that which is already yours. You don't because that would be foolish, so knowing that....what is your point here? The handout concept? Lets face reality here, there is a floor determined by government below which the government will not allow any citizen to fall below. As such its not a bad thing, but there is indeed a cost associated with it. Call it the price of civilization. Perhaps you would be interested to know that how citizens are treated by their own government determines whether or not they remain citizens. Paying their taxes and using the services and programs covered by our little civilization. When you think about it, I am sure you will agree that the real issue is actually government spending, nothing more and nothing less.

[M.Dancer]

We don't need a public pension system and I certainly don't want to entrust my retirement to the government.

We need one for those who are too lazy or too stupid to manage their own. What we should have is an option to self direct their pensions.

[eyeball]

Correct. And chosing not to upgrade your skills to get a higher paying job is also a lifestyle.

Just don't choose occupations that require government managers, especially honest ones. I'd also stay away from any that require government certification. It's decided the next rung up my ladder is going cost me almost $14,000.

Crime is definitely an option.

[eyeball]

We need one for those who are too lazy or too stupid to manage their own. What we should have is an option to self direct their pensions.

I like the quota system that was handed out to a few lucky individuals around the coast who just happened to be in a particular fishery at a particular time, a completely arbitrary window that the government decided made them eligible to receive a privatized chunk of public resource. The government's managers chunked it up to make their own jobs easier and to also establish some specific economic policies that were handed down to Canada from the IMF.

Most of these guy's now basically sit on their asses and charge some $50,000 a year to guys like me so we can go work for their living. That $50,000 comes off the top of our catch at times meaning the guys actually doing the work get as little as $7500 once the dust settles. Then they pay for the monitoring cameras and inspectors, the fuel, the bait, the gear, the deckhands, the boat, the licence, the mortgage, the bills, the next round of certificates...and oh yeah the pension...ha ha ha ha.

Tell you what, I'll opt out of the pension plan in exchange for a chunk of Canada too. Whattya say?

Edited December 21, 2010 by eyeball

[William Ashley]

The government dips into everyones paycheck in the form of withholding taxes. Get over it, it ain't gonna change anytime soon. How else can the feds cover their loan payments but through some form of taxation. Pensions are merely the tip of the iceberg, and just between you and me, those are your own dollars invested in CPP. Its already your money if you paid into it, so why cut it off or have you forfeit that which is already yours. You don't because that would be foolish, so knowing that....what is your point here? The handout concept? Lets face reality here, there is a floor determined by government below which the government will not allow any citizen to fall below. As such its not a bad thing, but there is indeed a cost associated with it. Call it the price of civilization. Perhaps you would be interested to know that how citizens are treated by their own government determines whether or not they remain citizens. Paying their taxes and using the services and programs covered by our little civilization. When you think about it, I am sure you will agree that the real issue is actually government spending, nothing more and nothing less.

Oh yes, I fully agree.

But this doesn't mean the government can't organize if the people are unable to for themselves due to ownership enthropy and the speed of change. The government is a utility to spur change not solely enforce the status quo ante - that is the governor generals job.

I should note though that floor you are speaking of is the prison or asymlum floor. There is no real social safety net in places such as Ontario other than prison or insane asylums. Welfare is optional in Ontario the conditions to get it are many and not everyone qualifies. The floor is $0 that is a bar and so.

For instance:

Income not in excess of prescribed limits (this doesn't equate net income it equates GROSS income - so even if your work requires more input than money received or is break even - it still makes you ineligible - because you are receiving income)

Assets not in excess of prescribed limits (even if the person is unable to sell the assets - as long as they own the property they are ineligible - even if they have no money or no one willing to exchange for it - if it is assessed at more than say $500 or whatever then you are eligible even if no one will take it for your needs such as food and shelter - also forfiture for less than market value is scrutinized and generally disallowed.. )

Living with parents and not financially dependent on them (even if the parents don't give any money to live and the parents request they leave and feed themselves as long as the parents don't get the police to remove them no assistance)

Not a single person incarcerated full time (that is the jail line)

Not a single person less than 16 years of age without dependents (you are a ward or homeless if you are 16 or less)

Not a single person who has been deemed none-compliant for 3 or 6 months (if you don't obey all commands -- even if they are a violation of your consitutional rights or discriminatory.. such as requiring a male to cut his hair because it is too long.. )

Not a single person subject to a period of ineligibility due to welfare fraud conviction (was deemed fraud - no social safety net even if not in jail)

Not a single person without dependents who is receiving a loan under the Ministry of Colleges and University Act or the Canada Student Loan Act. (if you are getting OSAP living assistance no welfare)

These are some examples...

As you can see they are not absolute...

the "non compliance one" is the arbitrary one. It effectively means - if you don't follow whatever instructions you are given you can be deemed non compliant.

Non-Compliance

(a) Overview

Refusal or failure (variously, as below) by applicants, recipients or required members of their benefit units (ie. participants) to adequately participate in workfare as discussed above (sections 3,4,5) - barring any excepting circumstance (s.6 above) - can result in refusal of or reduction of "assistance" [Act s.14].

In cases of reduction, the assistance rate (ie. "budgetary requirements", see Ch.3 "Basic Assistance") shall be calculated as though the 'offender' is not a part of the benefit unit ("splitting-off"). Note however that the offender's income (see Ch.6 "Income Rules") and assets (se Ch.7 "Asset Rules") will still be counted for purposes of reducing and disentitling the benefit unit.

Previous "quit/fire" rules, which set out specific periods of suspension for unjustified termination of employment by an applicant/recipient, and for justified termination of an applicant/recipient's employment by an employer were revoked in June 2006 [Reg 261/06]. These changes may have little impact on administrator practice as the "quit/fire" rules are still essentially embodied in the persisting s.28 duty to accept and maintain employment, which has its own similar suspension penalties upon non-compliance.

( Applicants

The refusal "offences" applicable to applicants and participant members of their benefit unit include [Reg s.34]:

refusal to comply with their "duty to work" requirements (s.5 above); or

refusal to participate in their "community participation" (s.3 above) or "employment measures" (s.4 above) requirements.

In such cases, single person benefit units shall be refused eligibility. Where the benefit unit has dependents, eligibility may be granted but the bugetary requirements of the refusing members will be "split-off" from assistance as described above.

© Recipients

. Overview

The workfare "offences" and suspension penalties of a recipient and their benefit unit are set out here.

In any case of suspension, where the recipient or any member of their benefit unit requires a continuation of drug coverage (ie. drug card) "for a serious illness or serious health condition", then the drug card shall continue through the period of the suspension [Reg 33(1.1)(1.2)].

. Non-Compliance

The non-compliance "offences" of recipients and participant members of their benefit unit include [Reg s.33]:

failure to comply with their "duty to work" requirements (s.5 above);

refusal or failure to make reasonable efforts to participate in their "community participation" (s.3 above) or "employment measures" (s.4 above) requirements.

In such cases, the penalty is:

for a single person benefit unit, suspension of benefits for one month for first non-compliance "offence", and three months if there has been a prior similar non-compliance "offence" under either welfare or ODSP (ie. for ODSP spouses or dependent adults under workfare duties) [OW Reg s.33(2), ODSP Reg 24];

for a recipient with dependents (which includes a spouse), the allowance shall be reduced by the budgetary requirements of the person who offended for one month for the first non-compliance "offence" and three months if there has been a prior similar non-compliance "offence" under either welfare or ODSP (ie. for ODSP spouses or dependent adults under workfare duties) [OW Reg s.33(3), ODSP Reg 24].

For purposes of suspensions, time shall count from the date of the administrator's decision regarding the non-compliance [Reg 33(4)].

Assistance will not automatically re-start when the period of suspension is over, so recipients must re-apply at that time (see Ch.9: "Administrator Decisions: Cancellation, Suspension and Reduction Decisions: Re-Application and Reinstatement").

Where a recipient's suspension is grounded in refusal or failure to make reasonable efforts respecting substance addiction screening (testing), assessment programs or treatment, then the suspension or reduction may terminate earlier if the offending member enters into a participation agreement agreeing to engage in the activities (note that the suspension ends on the date of the agreement, not the date of actual compliance) [Reg 33(4.1)].

Where a recipient's suspension is grounded in refusal or failure to make reasonable efforts respecting a literacy assessment and/or training program, and if the administrator "believes on reasonable grounds that the participant may have a learning disorder," then the suspension may be held off for up to 90 days pending a letter from "a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario or a member of the College of Psychologists of Ontario" confirming the learning disorder. If such a letter is received there shall be no suspension.

Edited December 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[M.Dancer]

Whattya say?

You whine a lot.

[eyeball]

You whine a lot.

You acquiesce a lot.

[M.Dancer]

You acquiesce a lot.

Perhaps, but not in public...

Seriously, if you don't like the game you play, play another.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps, but not in public...

Seriously, if you don't like the game you play, play another.

...word!

[scribblet]

I haven't read up on the proposed pension reform but will as soon as I can so can't comment on how good or bad it is, I'm no financial expert either. There's a summary here

http://links.visibli.com/share/71eae7 and other stuff here http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/12/17/future-retirees-to-find-it-harder-to-replace-75-of-working-incomes/

We never had 75% of our working income but have managed to live decently including some travel, I must say that the pension splitting for seniors has helped us a lot.

Maybe we should all get various informed opinions before dumping all over it.

[Topaz]

Correct. And chosing not to upgrade your skills to get a higher paying job is also a lifestyle.

Dancer, that's easy to say but for some people they either don't have the money to do that, they are over the age of 50 and they have upgraded and can't find work. Its not a simple now a day as you think.

[eyeball]

Perhaps, but not in public...

Seriously, if you don't like the game you play, play another.

I am, I'm into my fourth or fifth now.

[Zachary Young]

On the issue of the social safety net I must find myself very much in disagreement with the poster above. For one thing, it doesn't exist. Ever been dirt poor? There's no help for you and none is needed anyway. The hundreds of billions of dollars the government spends isn't going to the poor, it's going to patronage, to the inflated salaries of worthless bureaucrats, to the special interests and to the military industrial complex. Where exactly do the poor get anything from this? No, it's the poor who pay for all of this, so don't give me that safety net bullshit because I have in the past fallen below this so called safety net and there was no mighty hand of government to lift me up, but my entire life I have paid tax after tax all in the name of 'helping the poor' even when I was the poor. You people don't understand, government is just a scam, a racket, it's the largest criminal organization in this country and I for one denounce them as the highwaymen they so clearly are. In fact there is more honesty in the highway man than in the heavy hand of the state, for at least the highwayman does not lecture you about the moral necessity of his theft while he steals your purse.

[scribblet]

ho hum... not another one

I'd like to hear some opinions on the impact or the feasibility of the pension proposals.

Edited December 21, 2010 by scribblet

[M.Dancer]

I am, I'm into my fourth or fifth now.

With that track record, you could hit the road as a demotivational speaker...

[eyeball]

With that track record, you could hit the road as a demotivational speaker...

Actually some people hereabouts have held me up as an example of someone who doesn't give up.

If anything I should stand as an example of why it is pure folly to think Ottawa or the Provinces could ever properly and above all else honestly manage anything to do with the economic opportunities our natural resources offer. Trust me, I'll never make that mistake again.

Maybe I should have listened to one of my very first skipper's words of advice after all; "you better smarten up and screw the world because it'll screw you the first chance it gets". I always thought that was a little too cynical but what do you think?

[DFCaper]

Hahaha lifestyle. Because living paycheque to paycheque and still not making ends meet is a lifestyle.

As a middle class person in his 30's who does put away for early retirement (then go paycheque to paycheque), I am betting that 66% of Canadians are not so poor that they cannot save for retirement.

One of my frustrations is most of my friends still haven't seriously started to save for retirement. They make no less money than I do, definitely don't have the dependants I do, but are part of the no retirement savings demographic. I do sympathize for the people who are unable to make a good living and will retire at or beyond 65 to continue life in poverty, but they are only a part of the issue. It is the people who rather drive new cars and buy toys than buy RRSPs.

I personally think we need to better educate the people of this country about Finances. There should be a class on it every year through High school to pound financial responsibility into people’s heads. I think over half the issue is people being ignorant to what they need to do to retire well.

I do not mind the idea of increasing employee contributions to CPP, but do not agree with forcing companies to pay extra employee taxes. I actually agreed with Elizabeth May when she said that we should not tax the things we do want, but the things we want to eliminate. And we need more jobs. A worst job market isn't going to help us financially. And I also think the PRPP plan is a good plan, just not the ultimate solution.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

As a middle class person in his 30's who does put away for early retirement (then go paycheque to paycheque), I am betting that 66% of Canadians are not so poor that they cannot save for retirement.

One of my frustrations is most of my friends still haven't seriously started to save for retirement. They make no less money than I do, definitely don't have the dependants I do, but are part of the no retirement savings demographic. I do sympathize for the people who are unable to make a good living and will retire at or beyond 65 to continue life in poverty, but they are only a part of the issue. It is the people who rather drive new cars and buy toys than buy RRSPs.

I personally think we need to better educate the people of this country about Finances. There should be a class on it every year through High school to pound financial responsibility into people’s heads. I think over half the issue is people being ignorant to what they need to do to retire well.

I do not mind the idea of increasing employee contributions to CPP, but do not agree with forcing companies to pay extra employee taxes. I actually agreed with Elizabeth May when she said that we should not tax the things we do want, but the things we want to eliminate. And we need more jobs. A worst job market isn't going to help us financially. And I also think the PRPP plan is a good plan, just not the ultimate solution.

Look fella, the burden SHOULD be shared. Its not like business is covering its fair share anyhow, they never have.

[M.Dancer]

Its not like business is covering its fair share anyhow...

The fair share of business in regard to personal pensions is zero, unless otherwise contracted.