What to do with Canada Post?

[Argus]

No why would it? The reason to use the tower of money is to produce growth or a return, not just for the sake of using it.

And what provides the best return depends to a great extent on the taxation involved. If the likes of Apple can move money around the world in a shell game and pay no taxes then why should they actually use it on something they might have to pay taxes on? Clearly the answer is to tax that money so it becomes more economically sensible to put it to work.

Sounds like you don't know what the community reinvestment act is. You should read about it and become informed. It directly ordered banks, by law, to lend to high-risk borrowers.

Please provide a link which explains how this law caused the downfall of Icelandic and British banks. Thanks.

You average CEO has far less that that. But you're missed the point, it's the small companies that get killed by the instability and complicated tax and regulatory environment, far more than the big ones.

Nonsense. Regulatory and tax environments are known quantities. Also known is why companies are racking up huge profits while paying lower and lower taxes: They bribed the politicians to change the tax codes. So it's time to force the politicians to put thsoe taxes back and make those companies pay.

[bjre]

The main blood sucker is the private banks, The government borrow money from private banks and use %9 of the our tax dollars to pay the interest each year.

Government should not do that, They should borrow money from Bank Of Canada if need. No matter Bank Of Canada charge interest or not, it is belongs to all the people in Canada.

And the morgage companies are the blood suckers too, they take money as interest from amost every family of this country, a large part of the values that work class created has been taken away in this way, that makes the cost of all the business higher.

The law should be change to make only the company owned by the government can provide morgage. So that the interest can be all becomes tax dollars for all the Canadians. It is unfair that the laws allows only serveral selected private company to lend you money with 0 reserve requirement to make money for its private bosses.

[g_bambino]

[Y]ou can't blame them for fighting for their jobs and working conditions.

You can if their fight for jobs and working conditions is in the form of paralyzing the company they work for so as to extort yet more sick days, or less work for the same pay, or another unjustified raise, or something along those lines.

[hitops]

And what provides the best return depends to a great extent on the taxation involved. If the likes of Apple can move money around the world in a shell game and pay no taxes then why should they actually use it on something they might have to pay taxes on?

Because of ROI. But when there's no perceived ROI, it makes no sense to use it.

Clearly the answer is to tax that money so it becomes more economically sensible to put it to work.

That would accomplish the opposite of what you are trying to do. You have a problem with companies moving their money around, and then propose a solution of taxation here, which would precisely motivate them to move their money around rather than spend it.

Please provide a link which explains how this law caused the downfall of Icelandic and British banks. Thanks.

Please try to stay on topic. The extent of the crisis which has affected many more countries than just Iceland, does not change the fact that American legislators forced American banks to make foolish loans by law, or that fact that they agreed to use taxpayer money to cover the losses (Freddie and Fannie) if defaults ever happened (which is exactly what happened). A classic example of gov making laws to solve problems created by gov making laws. Right now Obama to his credit is trying to scale down and hopefully get rid of Fannie and Freddie. We should also get rid of our own version of it up here, the CMHC.

Nonsense. Regulatory and tax environments are known quantities. Also known is why companies are racking up huge profits while paying lower and lower taxes: They bribed the politicians to change the tax codes. So it's time to force the politicians to put thsoe taxes back and make those companies pay.

That has nothing to do with my point. Small businesses get killed relative to large ones, because they cannot afford to employ the people required to cope with the regulations. If a new tax law comes in, a large company can hire an accountant or 10 who specialize in that. A small business cannot, it's usually the owner doing everything or a few family members. More laws and more regs will always favor Wal-Mart and Target over the local guy's corner store or even a medium sized business. More regs are targeted at large businesses to make the frothing public feel good for a politician's benefit, but they never hurt them as much as they hurt small businesses.

Edited September 12, 2013 by hitops

[AlienB]

so pay more, I'm already paying $10 for important mail, what does $1 as opposed to 70 cents really matter. If fedex wants to offer lower letter mail rates or other carriers whatever.

Services cost what they cost. it isn't really fair to ask the general public to subsidize when it should be the people using the services to pay for them.

The government will be forced to change the way it operates. Some aspects of government refuse electronic communications, and really that is a problem because they delay everything by creating mail logs. None the less businesses who want paper records will do so. There is no doubt that the transition to electronic services still exists.

Sometimes though lettermail is safer.. and more private, email in general is not private anymore all communications are monitored. You therefore must communicate via courrier or post if you want relative confidentaility that isn't logged into the electronic hive mind.

People who want the service will pay. I'm in a rural area so I get my mail by post office box. People in the city have it too good.

None the less, if people are willing to pay for the service they should be able to request it. I think this needs to go to the communities and they should decide if they want to pay for the enhanced service.

There is no doubt though that the users should be the ones paying for the service.

Canada Post does good though, they provide poboxes for free. There is some level of public service in CP, so yes there should be some public funds.. however enhanced services vs. lowest common denominator services are two seperate matters.

Let people pay for better services. That arnt for postal notices. The issue ends up being how can people get safe delivery, and distributed population locations wherebye there isn't enough room to service everyone.

When you look at the alternative though Canada post has wiggle room to raise its service rates. For sucessful businesses these are tax write offs though, so you have to question why are we subsidizing business while taxing the people. We need to think critically about this.

You will have inbuilt subsidization anyway, and you can only improve economy, and sustainability by having businesses seriously question their corporate practices.

The company needs to manage itself though but that isn't based upon eCommerce. Canada post is and hould continue to be transfered into a service canada role. That really is its future.

We need to talk about secure government services, and secure business services. Secure ecommerce through the government provider.. the organization has potential but really the future identity should be parcel delivery and service canada supports, and specific secure business, personal, and government communications.

In general there is no money maker, and the rate can go up to around $10 before it is a courier service.

Its really just a service for people who don't want to be electronically monitored.

Edited September 16, 2013 by AlienB

[guyser]

, what does $1 as opposed to 70 cents really matter.

Seeing as how we mail about 300 letters a day......

[jacee]

My parents have a computer at their home. My mother is 80 and stepfather is 94, and both have zero capacity to use it. It is a lovely paperweight.

My mother's 83 and she has a tablet always with her, and a desktop and uses both frequently. So do some of her friends. It's great for her to keep in touch with family and friends. Edited September 16, 2013 by jacee

[bleeding heart]

Don't be one of those guys who needs to pigeon hole people because you can't deal with the argument. I don't know what's on fox nor do I care. I don't have a TV. Sounds like you don't know what the community reinvestment act is. You should read about it and become informed. It directly ordered banks, by law, to lend to high-risk borrowers. Then gov said don't worry we'll back you. And they did, and you have the results.

That situation was a very small part of the overall mess.

Those who still use this argument (and their numbers have, tellingly, shrunk considerably over the past year or two) are unaware that their pet theory has been soundly discredited, over and over.

[Topaz]

No, paying wages to a bunch of people for 5 move years is better than laying them all off 5 years earlier. That's 5 additional years of wages and tax collection for x number of jobs compared to what would have been.

I understand your thinking but five years later, population 1000 left, no jobs, most babyboomers just have high school, no jobs for them, many empty stores, because of high taxes, no new businesses will come and if they shift taxes to residental, many will lose their homes. many people who do have jobs are part time, like 25-30 hrs. Its a mess and people are angry at both, provincial and feds.

!

[ironstone]

And pensions are not a luxury. They're a necessity. Which is why government employees should be covered accordingly. The government's going to end up paying for them one way or another.

So do you honestly believe that EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE in Canada is entitled to a pension plan?How about small businesses with just a handful of employees,how on earth can a small business owner afford to basically pay these people for life?

The problem is the defined benefit pension plan,it should be replaced with the defined contribution plan.And the private sector taxpayers should not be forced to top up pension shortfalls for anyone in the massive Canadian Public Service.

[Boges]

$1 a Stamp! And they won't even delivery to your home if you live in an urban area?. That'll save Canada Post.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/12/11/canada_post_to_announce_radical_changes_to_save_itself.html

OTTAWA—Canada Post is phasing out urban home delivery as part of a five-point plan that will serve as the “foundation of a new postal system,” the Crown Corporation revealed Wednesday morning.

Over the next five years, Canada Post intends to phase out door-to-door delivery for the one third of Canadian households that currently enjoy it, converting their service to community mailboxes.

“This change will provide significant savings to Canada Post and will have no impact on two thirds of Canadian households that already receive their mail and parcels through community mailboxes, grouped or lobby mailboxes or rural mailboxes,” Canada Post’s press release reads.

The cost of stamps will also increase to $1 per stamp, or 85 cents per stamp in a booklet or coil. Canada Post estimates the “new approach” to mail pricing will generate between $160 million to $200 million.

[Argus]

So do you honestly believe that EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE in Canada is entitled to a pension plan?How about small businesses with just a handful of employees,how on earth can a small business owner afford to basically pay these people for life?

The problem is the defined benefit pension plan,it should be replaced with the defined contribution plan.And the private sector taxpayers should not be forced to top up pension shortfalls for anyone in the massive Canadian Public Service.

Like it or not the benefit plans accorded to public servants are simply an indication of their higher education and skills. Instead of taking higher salaries, they defer some of it into various benefit plans.

If the private sector people who don't get very good jobs or benefits plans are upset they ought to have done more to increase their job skills instead of whatever it was they spent their time on.

[Boges]

Like it or not the benefit plans accorded to public servants are simply an indication of their higher education and skills.

You say that in a thread where we're talking about people who run around putting paper in boxes?

[Argus]

You say that in a thread where we're talking about people who run around putting paper in boxes?

I said that in response to a sweeping whine about public servants and pensions.

[Boges]

I said that in response to a sweeping whine about public servants and pensions.

But one could argue much of Canada Post's trouble is their pension, and its workforce is largely low skill.

In Ontario yesterday we have an instance where the Auditor General took Ontario Power Generation to task over the lavish compensation for OPG staff and executives. Would you argue they deserve what they get simply because they are "higher skill"?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/opg-fires-3-executives-after-auditor-general-s-report-1.2458723

[Wilber]

Ah - no. The entire concept of a company sponsored defined benefit pension is a scam designed to allow union bosses to claim they got rich settlements when all they did is permanently shackle their members retirement plan to future performance of the company. If union bosses actually cared about the best interests of their members they would have insisted on a 100% employee funded and managed pension fund. They did not because to make such a plan viable they would have had to made significant concessions in wages/benefits.

IOW - if pensions are underfunded then unions deserve a large part of the blame.

You clearly have no clue about how registered pension plans work. Companies also loved them because they only have to make up for a funding shortfall, meaning that for decades most were 100% employee funded. It was a bargaining chip that cost them nothing. It is only since the markets and interest rates went south and many companies started facing ageing work forces that most companies have had to contribute at all and of course when times get tough, they don't have the cash to contribute so the plan goes underfunded anyway. They apply for funding extensions and get them because the last thing government wants is for them to collapse.

Even if the unions and companies did want to increase funding, until just recently the federal government prohibited plans from being more than 10% over funded because contributions are tax exempt and government didn't want to give up the revenue. 10% was not enough to cover the market down turn in 08 and record low interest rates. The government has since increased the over funding limit but for plans that are already underfunded because of the previous legislation, it does them no good.

Some of the ignorance I hear expressed concerning registered plans is stunning. It is not a question of whether pension plans are good or not because there is no doubt that they are. People with decent pensions contribute to the economy rather than being a drag on it. The only issues should be how to make them sustainable and accessible to more people, not less.

[Wilber]

My parents have a computer at their home. My mother is 80 and stepfather is 94, and both have zero capacity to use it. It is a lovely paperweight.

My dad wanted a computer for his 80th birthday and we got him one. He is 96 now and on his third. He has email buddies all over the world but there is no way he will do online billing and banking.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Wilber

[TimG]

Companies also loved them because they only have to make up for a funding shortfall, meaning that for decades most were 100% employee funded.

Legally the company is on the hook for shortfalls so they are not 100% employee funded at all.

Like I said: making a pension truly employee funded would have cost the union too much in take home pay concessions so they instead choose to screw their members by hitching their futures to the future of the company.

Even if the unions and companies did want to increase funding, until just recently the federal government prohibited plans from being more than 10% over funded because contributions are tax exempt and government didn't want to give up the revenue.

Again - if the employees were on the hook for the shortfall they would have been entitled to the surpluses. They could have used this to reduce contribution rates and/or raise benefits to eliminate the surplus as the saw fit. But this advantage was pissed away by union reps who did not want to make concessions on the wage side.

Unions are not innocent victims in the pension mess. They are co-conspirators.

It is not a question of whether pension plans are good or not because there is no doubt that they are. People with decent pensions contribute to the economy rather than being a drag on it. The only issues should be how to make them sustainable and accessible to more people, not less.

Pension plans should not a be structured as a liability for corporations. If a group of employees wants to create a structured pension plan that they contribute to AND assume all of the liability then that is fine with me. What has to end is the nonsense that people can be shielded from the risks that come with investing for retirement. Edited December 11, 2013 by TimG

[Wilber]

Legally the company is on the hook for shortfalls so they are not 100% employee funded at all.

Like I said: making a pension truly employee funded would have cost the union too much in take home pay concessions so they instead choose to screw their members by hitching their futures to the future of the company.

Wrong. For decades, plans were being fully funded by the employee contributions and there were no shortfalls. They were a freebee for the companies. In retrospect, it would have been far better if both the employees and companies had been making contributions up front instead of just the employees. If that had been done and the over contribution limit had been higher, most of these plans would not be in trouble.

Again - if the employees were on the hook for the shortfall they would have been entitled to the surpluses. They could have used this to reduce contribution rates and/or raise benefits to eliminate the surplus as the saw fit. But this advantage was pissed away by union reps who did not want to make concessions on the wage side.

Unions are not innocent victims in the pension mess. They are co-conspirators.

What is it about it being illegal to over fund a plan by more than 10% that you don't understand?

Pension plans should not a be structured as a liability for corporations. If a group of employees wants to create a structured pension plan that they contribute to AND assume all of the liability then that is fine with me. What has to end is the nonsense that people can be shielded from the risks that come with investing for retirement.

No one put a gun to the head of the companies to enter into these agreements. They were quite happy to do so and put any liablility they might have off into the distance without doing anything to prepare for such an eventuality.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Wilber

[Topaz]

I think part of the money woes could be the number of managers at the top and their wages. I think many people including seniors, and people who have a disability are going to find it tough getting their mail and when those monthly cheques are sent, how many those seniors going to be attacked or in the winter, slip and fall. There's still a number of people who don't have computers and the Post better do some changes or the Tories will have another target on their backs from voters. Why not just reduce the number of days for delivery? http://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/aboutus/corporate/management/default.jsf

[Topaz]

I think part of the money woes could be the number of managers at the top and their wages. I think many people including seniors, and people who have a disability are going to find it tough getting their mail and when those monthly cheques are sent, how many those seniors going to be attacked or in the winter, slip and fall. There's still a number of people who don't have computers and the Post better do some changes or the Tories will have another target on their backs from voters. Why not just reduce the number of days for delivery? http://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/aboutus/corporate/management/default.jsf

[Boges]

They should reduce the number of days.

These Super boxes are already a reality in many places. People must deal with them already. If a senior lives in an apartment building they have to deal with a Superbox set up.

[cybercoma]

Legally the company is on the hook for shortfalls so they are not 100% employee funded at all.

Right. Because no company has ever folded then re-opened to avoid paying it.

[TimG]

Wrong. For decades, plans were being fully funded by the employee contributions and there were no shortfalls.

But legally all of the shortfalls were 100% the responsibility of the company. This means no matter how much spin you want to put on it these were company funded pension plans.

What is it about it being illegal to over fund a plan by more than 10% that you don't understand?

What is it about companies keeping the surplus because they were on the hook for deficits that you don't understand? If it was an employee funded plan then the employees would got to keep the surplus.

No one put a gun to the head of the companies to enter into these agreements. They were quite happy to do so and put any liablility they might have off into the distance without doing anything to prepare for such an eventuality.

Sure - it always takes two to tango but unions are just as culpable for agreeing to a plan that would leave their members high and dry if a company failed. Unions had a choice - they could have insisted on a completely employee backed pension plan but that would have required more concessions on the wage front. They were greedy and are now getting burned. They certainly don't deserve any sympathy, Edited December 11, 2013 by TimG

[Wilber]

Right. Because no company has ever folded then re-opened to avoid paying it.

I don't know about that but these plans were designed to be employee funded, but that was in an era when it was thought an average 5% return on fixed income investments was considered reasonable,(not today's 2%) when historically they had been in the 6 to 9% range and government thought it could get away with limiting over funding to only 10%. Things haven't worked out that way.

People like to blame their personal ideological bad guys but the truth is, mistakes were made by a lot of different parties. Remember, these plans are designed and administered by pension professionals using the economic projections of the day and existing pension law, not the unions and the companies.