blueblood Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 That's right. It's time that people in North America had a frank discussion about tax rates and the need for sustainable government revenue. Better throw in raising the retirement age while we're at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 Better throw in raising the retirement age while we're at it. Definitely. All of that needs to be talked about....the problem is that people want to have their cake, eat all of it and more, and not gain weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 These two statements make your post impossible to understand. If it's too expensive for government because the costs are growing faster than the economy, it's also too expensive for individuals. That really depends on a lot of things. For one, the amount of overhead costs associated with me saving for my own retirement is zero. On the other hand, that cost is substantial when the government does it. That's right. It's time that people in North America had a frank discussion about tax rates and the need for sustainable government revenue. Sorry but if economic growth isn't fast enough to keep up with rising costs of programs, raising taxes at best delays the inevitable. Perhaps the frank discussion should be about re-evaluating what citizens expect their government to provide for them? Better throw in raising the retirement age while we're at it. I think the whole notion of a retirement age is an outdated concept. People should retire when they have accumulated the savings necessary to conclude that they will be able to support themselves for the expected remainder of their life span and no longer desire to work. Those who earn substantially above average often retire early. Those who never save up enough to be secure on their savings should probably keep working as long as they are able. I know people who have retired in their 40s, as well as people in their 70s and 80s who are still working. Myself, I plan to keep on working til I drop, since I enjoy my field of expertise. There is just no point to having a set age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 Sorry but if economic growth isn't fast enough to keep up with rising costs of programs, raising taxes at best delays the inevitable. So will privatizing things. There are many things that need to be done going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 I watched the OP video. Basically, they contracted out and got a better deal. It's a pretty rosy picture, how about the other side of the story ? It's just the push down on wages to people who are undereducated or don't have other options. Of course, everybody wants a better deal but why did pensions, unions and so on develop in the first place ? They developed because workers wanted protection from unfair labour practices, and low wages. These concerns will never go away. If you try to legislate them out of existence, then that's only a temporary measure; labour will regroup and demand a better deal too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 I watched the OP video. Basically, they contracted out and got a better deal. It's a pretty rosy picture, how about the other side of the story ? It's just the push down on wages to people who are undereducated or don't have other options. Of course, everybody wants a better deal but why did pensions, unions and so on develop in the first place ? They developed because workers wanted protection from unfair labour practices, and low wages. These concerns will never go away. If you try to legislate them out of existence, then that's only a temporary measure; labour will regroup and demand a better deal too. That won't work these days, there are too many other countries to set up shop in. The americans (who used to be the bastion of organized labour) are finding this out the hard way. Labour can't have a deal in which it makes compensation unsustainable for business/govt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 That won't work these days, there are too many other countries to set up shop in. The americans (who used to be the bastion of organized labour) are finding this out the hard way. Labour can't have a deal in which it makes compensation unsustainable for business/govt. Where can a county set up shop, except for where it is ? Also, in terms of companies setting up shop overseas, there's something inherently unfair about allowing companies to move across borders freely while not allowing people to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 Where can a county set up shop, except for where it is ? Wherever a vendor can provide services. When I book a state park reservation, the vendor is in another state or country. Also, in terms of companies setting up shop overseas, there's something inherently unfair about allowing companies to move across borders freely while not allowing people to do so. Life isn't fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 Life isn't fair. That means that bloated pensions are just something we have to accept, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 (edited) They developed because workers wanted protection from unfair labour practices, and low wages. These concerns will never go away. If you try to legislate them out of existence, then that's only a temporary measure; labour will regroup and demand a better deal too.There was never a need for a union in the public service. The formation of public service unions was an idelogical exercise. In fact, federal public servants in the US are not allowed to unionize. Edited April 15, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 That means that bloated pensions are just something we have to accept, I guess.Until we change the law and claw them back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 For how long in Canada was the pension fund just a number in a ledger? The CPP deductions were in fact just dumped into general revenue and pissed away. We now have an actual CPP pension fund and it is doing pretty well investing in the markets. I'm not sure how the fed is on it's pension/benefit liability to our civil servants, but the US is sunk. All the talk and moaning about their debt and deficite is real but the numbers bandied about by the MSM don't include Social Security liabilities. But at least you can find those numbers for the US if you dig. I have never seen that type of data for Canada. Have you looked here: Department of Finance Canada - Reports and Publications Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 Until we change the law and claw them back. Is that what you would do with the Federal Government Superannuation Fund TimG? Claw it back? How about the Canadian Forces Superannuation Fund - you know, pensions for soldiers. Claw that back too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.