Would Harper cut their own pensions?

[Topaz]

The government it seems really NEEDS to make deep cuts and could it be possible that things are so bad they Harper would reduced MP's pensions? Probably not, at least, not the one's there now but the future MP's? I think most Canadians think that their pensions are too much, especially the amount the tax payers vs them towards their pensions. Thoughts? http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/10/john-ivison-lavish-mp-pensions-on-chopping-block/

[CPCFTW]

The government it seems really NEEDS to make deep cuts and could it be possible that things are so bad they Harper would reduced MP's pensions? Probably not, at least, not the one's there now but the future MP's? I think most Canadians think that their pensions are too much, especially the amount the tax payers vs them towards their pensions. Thoughts? http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/10/john-ivison-lavish-mp-pensions-on-chopping-block/

That would definitely be the right thing to do and also extremely smart politically (assuming he doesn't lose the support of his party). If he pulls it off and there is enough media attention to it, this one move alone could secure Harper another majority (or at least make the imminent cuts more forgettable).

Edited January 11, 2012 by CPCFTW

[YEGmann]

MP pensions is not a government business.

[CPCFTW]

MP pensions is not a government business.

what?

[Topaz]

Another article says the regulations were set decades ago, that MP's pensions MUST grow by 10% yearly, no matter what he economy is doing. So if there's no money they print it and we taxpayers are on the hook for it. In 2009-10, we paid out 65 Million towrds MP's pension. This seem most unfair since this government was asked to do something for the workers who lost their company pensions, when the company ended up in financial problems. There seems to be a double-standard in Ottawa. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/11/pol-mp-pensions.html

[Smallc]

what?

The Board of Internal Economy controls MP perks.

[sharkman]

How about cutting their own salaries?

[Smallc]

How about cutting their own salaries?

Why should they? Many of them could be making far more money elsewhere, and you need to make it worth while.

[WWWTT]

Why should they? Many of them could be making far more money elsewhere, and you need to make it worth while.

This is a false statement.

Many of them already have businesses that continuasly generate revenue.

Aswell many are politicians to further extend/promote their contacts so that they are capable to generate a greater amount when they leave politics.Or in other words if some of these individuals were not elected they would not be capable to earn as much.

Unless you can provide some links to prove otherwise I'm sticken with what I know because I am basing my opinion on experience.

WWWTT

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Why should they? Many of them could be making far more money elsewhere, and you need to make it worth while.

Granted that many if not all could in fact make more money in the private sector, but that would be too much like work for those same people. These individuals are not supposed to be going into civil service seeking riches for heavens sake. The elected representatives in this country get paid at least a buck and a half, that's what five times the average wage for citizens? I have made nearly that much a year myself so I can tell you that when you are making that kind of money, you are not to stressed out to enjoy it.

To answer your posed question, they should cut their pay and benefits because they are supposed to be leaders in this society of ours. In this society you lead by example, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Applied to this instance, the government needs to practice what it has been preaching. Show me where in our constitution it says that politicians are immune from the ills of society? The entire golden goose concept must be considered. The cost of democracy can be high, and having said that our politicians take full advantage of it.

You suggestion of making it worth their while to undertake civil service is utter nonsense because there are numerous perks and privileges outside of the realm of taxable income. These elected folks do fairly well. I will counter your assertion by suggesting that elected officials are already generously compensated, and for that reason alone they should step forward and offer to review the process and structures necessary to replace their defined benefit packages.

[August1991]

The government it seems really NEEDS to make deep cuts and could it be possible that things are so bad they Harper would reduced MP's pensions? Probably not, at least, not the one's there now but the future MP's? I think most Canadians think that their pensions are too much, especially the amount the tax payers vs them towards their pensions. Thoughts?

I agree with you Topaz that most Canadians are appalled with MP pensions. If Harper is to have any credibility in cutting government spending, he must find a way to cut MP pensions. Heck, IIRC, the first Reform Party MPs agreed to renounce their pension.

The question is how to do this. Any change in conditions would have to pass the present parliament (!!!) and if it affected ex-MPs, it would invite a class-action suit.

----

If I were Harper, I would investigate every possible avenue for an easy legal solution. For example:

- remove CPI indexing from MP pensions

- clawbacks from OAP/CPP/RRQ or any other pensions

- change the employer/employee contribution ratio for pensions (currently about 95:5)

- change the age (currently 55)

- change the number of years of service for eligibility (currently 6)

- make previous MPs contribute to current pension funds if they want to receive the pension at 55

----

Ultimately, the question is what compensation that we give our elected representatives. Trudeau decided (using logical economic thinking) that if we give more money, we will attract better representatives. Frankly, thinking of the NDP MP Vegas, I reckon that Trudeau got this wrong.

I fear rather that if we pay our representatives alot, they'll just take us for saps and spend our money more freely.

I prefer the way that the Maine legislature pays its elected representatives.

To further my point, look at this thread that you started Topaz, and my comparison of Maine and NB: Link

Woe be Canada...

Edited January 13, 2012 by August1991

[Smallc]

This is a false statement.

No, actually, it isn't.

[punked]

Nope Harper will instead add more MPs to cost the Canadian tax payer more for the same out come.

[WWWTT]

No, actually, it isn't.

Sorry but your opinion does not trump my experience.

Unless you can provide reliable links?

WWWTT

[Smallc]

If you are a business person that can make money, there are many things that being an MP prevents, such as direct control of your company, or being the CEO of a country. Those are only a couple examples.

[William Ashley]

The government it seems really NEEDS to make deep cuts and could it be possible that things are so bad they Harper would reduced MP's pensions? Probably not, at least, not the one's there now but the future MP's? I think most Canadians think that their pensions are too much, especially the amount the tax payers vs them towards their pensions. Thoughts? http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/10/john-ivison-lavish-mp-pensions-on-chopping-block/

he doesn't get a pension he turned his down in the 90's.

it is fraud if he tries to get one.

and he needs to spend his retirement in jail if that transpires.

In a 1995 speech, he called the pension package a "monstrosity" that was "obscene."

"My wife and I just purchased our first home and we are planning for our future, but I could not go home and look my wife or my constituents in the eye if I opted into a plan like the one offered in Bill C-85. Instead, I will put my own money into an RRSP,"

Edited January 14, 2012 by William Ashley