Pensions MP's

[Topaz]

What are your views on HOW the MP's pensions should be presented, included in the HUGE budget or in a stand alone Bill? I would like to see it as a stand alone Bill because I think Canadians would like to see how MP's voted BUT that's not going to happen by what Clements said today. Now, why would the Tories put it in with all the other items they are going to stuff the Bill with? Politics. By putting it with the rest, then there is a very good chance the opposition would vote against the budget bill and therefore the Tories could say, the opposition oppposed changes to MP's pensions but the Tories didn't.

[blueblood]

What are your views on HOW the MP's pensions should be presented, included in the HUGE budget or in a stand alone Bill? I would like to see it as a stand alone Bill because I think Canadians would like to see how MP's voted BUT that's not going to happen by what Clements said today. Now, why would the Tories put it in with all the other items they are going to stuff the Bill with? Politics. By putting it with the rest, then there is a very good chance the opposition would vote against the budget bill and therefore the Tories could say, the opposition oppposed changes to MP's pensions but the Tories didn't.

At least the Tories are considering pension changes. How did that go with the other guys?

[madmax]

At least the Tories are considering pension changes. How did that go with the other guys?

Actually, the Tories are awaiting the results of the "Independant review".

We watched how uncomfortable our Conservative MP was with the subject last spring.

None of the current MPs will be affected and their gold plated pensions will remain intact.

$55,000 for 5 years starting at age 55 is very nice.

Pensions will be reformed. Its coming whether MPs want it or not.

What the MPs won't be doing is setting the bar, or lowering it themselves, which is what they should do.

And its not like they are going to set the age to 67.

They will change, but at the end of the day they will still be lucrative.

Edited September 20, 2012 by madmax

[Wilber]

Actually, the Tories are awaiting the results of the "Independant review".

We watched how uncomfortable our Conservative MP was with the subject last spring.

None of the current MPs will be affected and their gold plated pensions will remain intact.

$55,000 for 5 years starting at age 55 is very nice.

Pensions will be reformed. Its coming whether MPs want it or not.

What the MPs won't be doing is setting the bar, or lowering it themselves, which is what they should do.

And its not like they are going to set the age to 67.

They will change, but at the end of the day they will still be lucrative.

There isn't one MP that has any credibility when it comes to pensions. Theirs or anyone else's. They are supposed to be leaders but you can bet your mortgage they will be the last to back away from the trough, if at all.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Wilber

[scribblet]

It's going to be tough, but it's coming. MPs will have to wait upwards of 10 years longer to start collecting their political pensions under the proposed changes so will cost MP hundreds of thousands of dollars in future benefits. Starting after the next federal election MPs will begin receiving at age 65 instead of 55. I believe they will also be paying up to 50% of the premiums. It's a good start.

[Smallc]

It's going to be tough, but it's coming. MPs will have to wait upwards of 10 years longer to start collecting their political pensions under the proposed changes so will cost MP hundreds of thousands of dollars in future benefits. Starting after the next federal election MPs will begin receiving at age 65 instead of 55. I believe they will also be paying up to 50% of the premiums. It's a good start.

A good start? What more would you expect from them?

[scribblet]

A good start? What more would you expect from them?

If they are not addressing it and I'm not sure if they are, they need to address the calculation which is usually based on 2% a year for a maximum of 35 years of service, resulting in 70% of the average of the last or best, 5 years earnings. Currently they get 3% to a max.of 75%.

Premiums should be 50/50, the amount the gov't/taxpayers contribute is far higher than 50%, according to the taxpayer's assoc. anyhow.

If pension is collected before age 65 usually it is actuarialy reduced, although I'm not sure if they will be able to collect before 65 at all.

Edited September 21, 2012 by scribblet

[Smallc]

I agree, it should be 50/50, but I don't think there's a problem with the pension being larger than normal. It isn't a normal job.

[scribblet]

I agree, it should be 50/50, but I don't think there's a problem with the pension being larger than normal. It isn't a normal job.

I can live with 3% as long as the premiums are 50/50, I think the taxpayer.com get's people all riled up thinking that most MPs will be getting millions. They won't be, only the long term MPs will get the larger amounts quoted.

How many MPs actually serve the required 6 years, how many serve more than 10-12 years, not that many I think.

Edited September 21, 2012 by scribblet

[dre]

I agree, it should be 50/50, but I don't think there's a problem with the pension being larger than normal. It isn't a normal job.

I dont see any reason why they should get a bigger pension than anyone elses. I DO understand why the political class gives themselves all these perks... its simply because they can! But I dont see anything about that job that warrants a bigger pension than most other jobs.

[Smallc]

I dont see any reason why they should get a bigger pension than anyone elses. I DO understand why the political class gives themselves all these perks... its simply because they can! But I dont see anything about that job that warrants a bigger pension than most other jobs.

It's because the job is generally short term. If you look at most MPs, there isn't really a 'political class', but rather, group of people that change rather frequently.

[watchssgom]

"I love the tips on this site, they are alwaysto the point and just the information"

_____________________________________________

http://www.networkbiz.ru/user/watchssgo/

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=370956

http://www.4ego.ru/user/watchssgo/

http://caravaning.com.ua/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=22498

http://lema.not.br/estudo/forum/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=watchssgo

[August1991]

Trudeau gave MPs more money following the logic that more money would attract better candidates.

Trudeau offered generous pensions to MPs following the logic that bad MPs would leave politics if they had a parachute.

-----

1. What should we do to attract smart/good people to politics?

2. What should we do to encourage tired/useless people to leave politics?

[BlackShades]

What are your views on HOW the MP's pensions should be presented, included in the HUGE budget or in a stand alone Bill?

In terms of presentation what they need to do is find creative ways of using less words, such as a consolodated "terms" bill. Normally at the start of an act definitions are given on what words of special note mean. What they need to do is consolodate all those special terms in various bills into a master encyclopedia.

If the Tories respected parliamentary practice, having each issue as a separate bill would make sense; however, this is a government that has been in contempt of Parliament and still got voted back in, with more seats and a majority, should we believe the votes were actually counted.

Due to the unique nature of this government and its use of Parliament as a rubber stamp and gallery for lobbing nonsensical insults, it is of public interest to limit debate in an omnibus bill and we can sum it up that there are traces of idiocy in the bill before it even hits the press and there will remain traces of idiocy well after the courts dilute it. We cannot presume that the opposition will do all to much even in a minority government to remove that albeit rejection of the bill.

I think the fact these things are dragging on so long is issued as it would be better that the stupid complacent public got the full taste of a Conservative Canada instead of bit by bit as their brains are washed with some form of white. The sad thing is in the Conservatives emulating US style budgets it is undoubted the paper and wasted time and energy on the omnibus budget bill will be far less than those things after the bill has passed.

[dre]

It's because the job is generally short term. If you look at most MPs, there isn't really a 'political class', but rather, group of people that change rather frequently.

The fact that in some cases it IS short term makes the idea that they should get larger pensions than other workers even less logical.

[BlackShades]

off topic: it is a conflict of interest for mp's to vote on their pay and benefits. The senate also cannot vote in addition to this because it is a supply bill.

the public rolls set by the public service are suppose to be used for mp's yearly salaries.

It has ongoing been a corruption.

Edited September 22, 2012 by BlackShades

[Smallc]

The fact that in some cases it IS short term makes the idea that they should get larger pensions than other workers even less logical.

You want to attract talent, and you want to attract talent that is often leaving a better job for an uncertain future. Compensation should be given accordingly.

[dre]

You want to attract talent, and you want to attract talent that is often leaving a better job for an uncertain future. Compensation should be given accordingly.

All you want to competent administration. The best and brightest people are never going to be civil servants no matter how large the pensions are. What evidence do you have that lavish pensions are necessary to attrack competent administrators to run for office?

[Smallc]

Well, we seem to have done okay, so, it must be working.

[dre]

Well, we seem to have done okay, so, it must be working.

Thats your logic?

Since Canada is doing ok, it must be because of pensions?

I think lavish pensions and salaries actually damage the political process, and undermine confidence in governments. When people see a guy like Paul Martin with a vast business empire, getting 166000 dollars per year from the tax payer for the rest of his life they start to wonder who exactly this new political class is. When they see politicians voting themselves pay raises while everyone elses inflation adjusted wages are stagnant they start to wonder.

We need a blue collar working class government. Not an elite political class.

[Smallc]

We need a blue collar working class government. Not an elite political class.

We have....people from all walks of life in politics. We don't have a political class.

[WWWTT]

You want to attract talent, and you want to attract talent that is often leaving a better job for an uncertain future. Compensation should be given accordingly.

Actually when you use money to attract someone,you attract greed!

Are you saying greed is a good thing?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

We need a blue collar working class government. Not an elite political class.

Here Here!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

We have....people from all walks of life in politics. We don't have a political class.

As high portfolio ministers and PM's?And how many?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Well, we seem to have done okay, so, it must be working.

Ya actually big companies,corporations and the wealthy are doing better than Ok!

While more and more ppl per capita are slipping further and further back.

WWWTT