Mandatory retirement at age 65

[JWayne625]

Paul Martin opened this Pandora's box regarding mandatory retirement at age 65 during the Federal Election Campaign, now I read that Dalton McGinley of Ontario is about to start public consultations before he introduces legislation to do away with mandatory retirement , and that is where alarm bells start sounding for me. We all know that government's of all stripes as well as private pension funds have been playing fast and loose investing pension funds in high risk stocks and have lost a fortune because of it. Now we have a government actually proposing to eliminate the mandatory retirement age. Certainly not because they care!

My real concern with this whole question is will there come a time, with enough pressure from the corporate sector to simply raise the age of retirement from 65 to whatever, or just do away with it altogether, so that those that are required to fund these pensions can put off this onerous financial burden or eliminate it altogether. We already have corporation's, and government's crying about the fact that under present legislation they have to fund pensions and they are presently running a deficit. What better way to eliminate those deficits then by not having to pay out years of benefits with the hope that the recipients die before they get a chance to collect.

I realize that I am playing the devil's advacate here, but I am very cynical as to the motives behind any endeavor government undertakes supposedly on our behalf, that eliminates or postpones benefits that we are presently entitled to. I can see a time where the retirement age is raised and nobody will have a choice but to work until they drop. Canadian's spent years developing OAS, and for that matter CPP/QPP, so that people can retire at an age where they would still have the health to enjoy a few years of relatively good health, and to enjoy not having to get up every morning regardless of weather and trudge off to the grind. That all could be taken away with the passage of one peice of legislation.

Let's face it politicians are not there to represent you and I. Some may be naive enough to believe that fantasy, but the reality is that once elected they take their marching orders from bureaucrats and the corporate sector. I suggest you read a book written by a former Federal Finance Minister under Pierre Trudeau, Paul Helyer. He said, "Those who believe that the people they elect to office actually represent ordinary Canadians, are living in Fantasyland." Quote from the book, "The Evil Empire."

Do I trust that our politician's will do what is best for ordinary Canadian's? NOT IN THIS LIFETIME!

[maplesyrup]

JWayne625.......I think you are very wise to be suspect.

I also agree with your comments about the secretive corporative lobbying that is constantly going on which ultimately screws the average Canadian citizen.

[Stoker]

Who said anything about raising the retirement age?

Isn't this a good thing? Allowing old people the choice to still work abit longer a perhaps top up their RRSPs instead of forcing those that don't have much of a pension to eat cat food?

[JWayne625]

Stoker, you sound like someone who is just about at that stage in life where you don't want someone to tell you that it is time to go. I however don't want someone telling me down the road that they have done away with the retirement age, and the pensionable age has been raised so my option of taking retirement at age 65 is also gone. We didn't get a retirement age of 65 without a fight, but we could lose it if we aren't careful what we wish for. Year's ago, before a mandatory retirement age was established, people simply worked until they were carried off the job in a body bag, and I can foresee that happening again if the mandatory retirement age is raised or abolished. Government's and corporations are simply not going to pay people pensions and a salary at the same time, at least not for very long. Ask any business major, and they will tell you that if mandatory retirement age is either raised or abolished, it is only common sense that pensionable ages would also follow that same logical conclusion. Why else do you think corporations have been pushing for this iniative? It certainly isn't because they care about their employees, it is simply all about money, and how they can save it. Senior citizen employee's are less likely to ask for an increase in pay, for starters.

Don't kid yourself, corporation's have been pushing for a very long time to either postpone, or get out of topping up the shortfall in their employee's retirement plans, and this just might be the opportunity they have been waiting for. Many of these pension funds include municipal government's and they are seriously in deficit positions. Under current legislation they have only a certain amount of time to make-up the shortfall, and many have asked for extensions due to poor performance of their plans in high risk stocks.

By the way, most working people today can not afford to tuck money away into RRSP's. RRSP's were designed for the affluent amongst us, and I don't happen to be one of those people. Why do you think it is that Paul Martin was talking about raising the threshold for RRSP's so that more money can be contributed into RRSP's? It certainly isn't to help the average working man in this Country, because the reality for most people is that after the basics of life, a roof, food and clothing are looked after RRSP's, simply put, are a luxury they cannot afford.

Even our kids who are coming out of colleges and universities, are so far in debt, they have to move back home with their parents in order to afford the repayment terms on their student loans. It will be years if ever before they will be able to afford to tuck away money into RRSP's. Let's not forget one very important point, OAS, CPP/QPP, Medicare were all brought into being when this country had a social conscience, and today our government's are being influenced for the most part by a corporate agenda, and we all know the the first and only concern of corporation's is the "BOTTOM LINE," nothing else matters!

[caesar]

Well, I believe that someones health and well being should dictate at what age they should retire; not a calendar. However, I do not think anyone should be expected to work past the age of 65; that they should be able to collect their pension at that time; if they so desire. Some people thrive in retirement; others become depressed and get old faster. Some women who stayed home to raise children and have now lost their spouse may have little or no pension money left; a friend now has to retire next moneth from the bank; she has not worked long enough to build up any pension. It is not possible to live on government pension even with the supplement. I think that I would like to find part time work when my time comes to retire. Unless you have money to travel or hobbies it can be a sad existence.

[takeanumber]

It's anti-liberal to take away that choice.

If somebody wants to work to 67, so long as they're not collecting CPP while they're working, then I'm for it.

If the cout wants to go to 75, go for it.

So long as they can do it and it keeps them going, absolutely.

[August1991]

If somebody wants to work to 67, so long as they're not collecting CPP while they're working, then I'm for it.

They would be able to collect a private pension according to the conditions stipulated.

I agree this choice should be left to the employee and employer.

PM PM is hardpressed to argue in favour of mandatory retirement at 65.

[Stoker]

Stoker, you sound like someone who is just about at that stage in life where you don't want someone to tell you that it is time to go. I however don't want someone telling me down the road that they have done away with the retirement age, and the pensionable age has been raised so my option of taking retirement at age 65 is also gone. We didn't get a retirement age of 65 without a fight, but we could lose it if we aren't careful what we wish for. Year's ago, before a mandatory retirement age was established, people simply worked until they were carried off the job in a body bag, and I can foresee that happening again if the mandatory retirement age is raised or abolished. Government's and corporations are simply not going to pay people pensions and a salary at the same time, at least not for very long. Ask any business major, and they will tell you that if mandatory retirement age is either raised or abolished, it is only common sense that pensionable ages would also follow that same logical conclusion. Why else do you think corporations have been pushing for this iniative? It certainly isn't because they care about their employees, it is simply all about money, and how they can save it. Senior citizen employee's are less likely to ask for an increase in pay, for starters.

I do understand your concern (WRT bumping up the age to collect pension), but I've yet to see proof that that will infact happen. That doesn't change the fact, like caesar mentioned, a person health should be part of the decision as should their own free will.

I'd just like to think that the option for an older person to work longer should be the said person's choice.

By the way, most working people today can not afford to tuck money away into RRSP's. RRSP's were designed for the affluent amongst us, and I don't happen to be one of those people. Why do you think it is that Paul Martin was talking about raising the threshold for RRSP's so that more money can be contributed into RRSP's? It certainly isn't to help the average working man in this Country, because the reality for most people is that after the basics of life, a roof, food and clothing are looked after RRSP's, simply put, are a luxury they cannot afford.

I make under 40k a year and I make sure, just like rent/bills etc that I put money towards RRSPs every pay check, before any extras. Granted I'm only in my mid 20s and don't have kids etc, but by putting 100 dollars from every paycheck towards my RRSP, by the time i reach 65, my Bi-weekly income will be over 1200 dollars (not including other pensions/spouse etc). This is all at the current amount that I can invest, which when I earn more money, I plan to increase my contribution....

I'm hardly affluent (as of yet).

Even our kids who are coming out of colleges and universities, are so far in debt, they have to move back home with their parents in order to afford the repayment terms on their student loans. It will be years if ever before they will be able to afford to tuck away money into RRSP's. Let's not forget one very important point, OAS, CPP/QPP, Medicare were all brought into being when this country had a social conscience, and today our government's are being influenced for the most part by a corporate agenda, and we all know the the first and only concern of corporation's is the "BOTTOM LINE," nothing else matters!

Depends on the person........I've family and friends that all contribute.......not after school, but well they are going.

[caesar]

RRSPs are not that great. When you start using that money; you start paying taxes on it and and it bumps up your income to where you may lose many benefits. At 20, it is okay to put money there but use it to borrow and buy a nice home. Money put into real estate; particularly a private home can be a better investment. You can downgrade when you are older to free up some cash without it increasing your income.

[JWayne625]

Let's face it people, everything government does is about saving money. Not just the Lie'beral Government of Ontario, but all governments. Are you really naive enough to believe that government is actually going to do something to help ordinary people without a hidden agenda? Everything that McGinty has done is in an effort to raise money for the provincial coffers, including raising every fee and fine in the Province as well as, photo radar ,and stop light cameras, and now he wants to explore the avenue of doing away with mandatory retirement ages, so that eventually voluntary retirement ages can also be raised. It only makes economic sense to do this if there is a financial payback for government by upping the age at which you will be able to access a pension. Oh, he will be apologetic when he does it, and he will attempt to explain that he had no choice because of financial constraints, but to raise the age, but do it, he will. This has nothing to do with giving people choices, it is all about saving money. Maybe you will believe it when it happens, and you are told that your retirement plans need to be put on hold indefinitely, but then it will be too late.

Bentley who represents the Ontario government stated that he wanted to address the concerns of business, labour and others. That concerns me because business' main concern is having to make up the shortfalls in their pension plans as required under present legislation. What better way to do that than by eliminating the problem altogether with a raise in age at which people can qualify for benefits, and the possibly reduction in future pension benefits to those already retired and those who are about to retire, or better yet not having private pension plans at all. I'm sure around corporate board rooms they are pondering how they were stupid enough to get into providing pensions for their employees, and now they are thinking about how they are going to get out of that aspect of their business.

Wayne Samuelson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, said scrapping mandatory retirement would make it too easy for the province to push back the age at whick workers can collect pension benefits. He went on to say, This does not give employees the right to choose, it gives employers the right to choose who they are going to keep and who they are going to fire."

Sid Ryan, Ontario president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees said their aim is to get people out of the workforce as early as possible so they can enjoy their retirement, but do it with a decent pension plan and benefits.

Even the NDP house leader said the government's plan would result in workers being forced to work beyond the age of 65. "The fundamental aspect of what the Liberal government is proposing is to make it impossible for workers and their trade unions to negotiate contracts which permit retirement at 65 or even younger." Kormos said.

I can see the writing on the wall. At some point they're going to say, how sorry they really are, and how they thought that they were going to be able to acheive this without raising the age at which people can retire, but it has become apparent that it is not possible to acheive this, therefore they have no choice but to raise the age at which you cna qualify for a pension. Business people are probably already making plans where they can spend this windfall of additional profits. Think this is just fantasy, just watch and see., and don;'t say you haven't been warned, not just by me but by labour leaders, and your freindly neighbourhood NDP representative.

[Cartman]

RRSPs are not that great. When you start using that money; you start paying taxes on it and and it bumps up your income to where you may lose many benefits. At 20, it is okay to put money there but use it to borrow and buy a nice home. Money put into real estate; particularly a private home can be a better investment. You can downgrade when you are older to free up some cash without it increasing your income.

100% absolutely right.

[maplesyrup]

Labour leaders decry end to mandatory retirement

JWayne625....looks like you are dead on.