Should Women/Men Pay Different Rates for the CPP?

cybercoma · October 16, 2014

Nobody has to explain anything. They just have to show the numbers. This is public accounting. How much is paid out to men and how much is paid out to women. That's it. Show the numbers.

cybercoma · October 16, 2014

If we are going to continue dealing with hypotheticals, Shady & HAL et al. need to reconcile the fact that CPP is pegged to income earnings over a person's lifetime. Despite living a mere 4 years longer, women earn 71 cents for every dollar that men earn in Canada. Further still, far more women are dependant upon men as they are much more likely to be the ones to forego careers to stay at home and raise their families. Single mothers make up the poorest families in Canada. Roughly 70% of part-time employees are women. These four factors alone mean that women will pay far less into CPP as compared to men, despite drawing for a few years longer on average. In fact, the figure which Shady et al refuse to release is that women actually draw $0.60 to every $1.00 that men draw from CPP.

Parliament's website has a brief that was presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance by the Nova Scotia Association of Women's Centres. A literature review from 2006 and a study from 2003 that surveyed women's experiences revealed the precarious financial position of Canadian women in their twilight years. If I was so inclined, I could go find the academic reviews for the primary sourcing of the numbers in Statistics Canada's database, but for the purposes of making a point on an internet forum to people who have provided nothing of substance themselves, this is going to have to suffice. So I can either take the educated and researched opinion of this presentation to the Standing Committee on Finance, which acknowledges the difference in life spans that Shady et al have brought up yet still concludes that women are behind men, or I can go with the belaboured rhetoric and broken rationale of people on a forum who refuse to substantiate their claims with proof.

Edited October 16, 2014 by cybercoma

cybercoma · October 16, 2014

So the notion that women draw more CPP than men is completely and entirely wrong.

cybercoma · October 16, 2014

Oh and this is where you guys strain your backs moving the goalposts and begin talking about OAS, so I can correct you on what you'll undoubtedly say about that if you're capable of even digging that far into this.

Hal 9000 · October 16, 2014

Canada.com - On average, women in Canada have a life expectancy at birth of 81 years, while men have a life expectancy at birth of 75 years.

Stats Canada -

1960 to 1962 68 74 1970 to 1972 69 76 1980 to 1982 72 79 1990 to 1992 75 81 2000 to 2002 77 82

Huffington Post - Women are also living longer than men in the Great White North. Males born in 2012 have a life expectancy of 80 years, while for females it's 84 years.

According to stats Canada, Those men born in the early 70's will get just 4 years of benefits which is just 36% of the 11 expected golden years that women will enjoy. Even percentage wise, those born today will be closer together, but men will still get only 75% of years that a woman gets after retirement.

cybercoma · October 16, 2014

Maybe larger font will help you.

NOBODY IS ARGUING AGAINST YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT LIFE EXPECTANCIES.

Hal 9000 · October 16, 2014

If we are going to continue dealing with hypotheticals, Shady & HAL et al. need to reconcile the fact that CPP is pegged to income earnings over a person's lifetime. Despite living a mere 4 years longer, women earn 71 cents for every dollar that men earn in Canada. Further still, far more women are dependant upon men as they are much more likely to be the ones to forego careers to stay at home and raise their families. Single mothers make up the poorest families in Canada. Roughly 70% of part-time employees are women. These four factors alone mean that women will pay far less into CPP as compared to men, despite drawing for a few years longer on average. In fact, the figure which Shady et al refuse to release is that women actually draw $0.60 to every $1.00 that men draw from CPP.

Parliament's website has a brief that was presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance by the Nova Scotia Association of Women's Centres. A literature review from 2006 and a study from 2003 that surveyed women's experiences revealed the precarious financial position of Canadian women in their twilight years. If I was so inclined, I could go find the academic reviews for the primary sourcing of the numbers in Statistics Canada's database, but for the purposes of making a point on an internet forum to people who have provided nothing of substance themselves, this is going to have to suffice. So I can either take the educated and researched opinion of this presentation to the Standing Committee on Finance, which acknowledges the difference in life spans that Shady et al have brought up yet still concludes that women are behind men, or I can go with the belaboured rhetoric and broken rationale of people on a forum who refuse to substantiate their claims with proof.

...and your claiming I'm making hypotheticals and straw men? WoW!

We all have to deal with and pay according to what we earn, you should use your 71% argument elsewhere. If any woman makes only 71% of men, that's completely on her.

Hal 9000 · October 16, 2014

Maybe larger font will help you.

NOBODY IS ARGUING AGAINST YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT LIFE EXPECTANCIES.

...and longer life expectancy = larger claim on CPP.

We're not talking about monthly payments here, we're talking about the total amount of draw from the pension fund.

cybercoma · October 16, 2014

More women don't stay home than men? More women aren't part-time employees? More women don't make less than men?

CPP is pegged to income. Those who make less, get less CPP. Guess what. Women make less as a group than men do.

I can explain this to you, but I can't understand it for you. That's on you.

cybercoma · October 16, 2014

Seriously, I give up with this nonsense. This is clearly a case of someone who can't admit when they are wrong. Believe what you want.

Hal 9000 · October 16, 2014

Seriously, I give up with this nonsense. This is clearly a case of someone who can't admit when they are wrong. Believe what you want.

Clearly!

Look even if my monthly CPP cheque is 40% more than yours, you'll still collect more than me by time we're both dead.

If I work for 40 years paying what I pay and collect what I'll collect, and you work 40 years making 71% of what I make, you'll get more than me both money wise and by percentage of money paid into system - simply by outliving me by 5 or 6 years.

Now, If you work at the same job as me, you'll obviously make exactly what I make and pay exactly what I pay and in the end you'll easily collect double from the CPP system as I will.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Hal 9000

cybercoma · October 16, 2014

Women draw $0.60 for every $1.00 that men draw from CPP.

Tell me, is 0.6 more or less than 1.0?

Hal 9000 · October 16, 2014

Women draw $0.60 for every $1.00 that men draw from CPP.

Tell me, is 0.6 more or less than 1.0?

If I get 1000$ per month and live 9 years, I'll collect 108,000$ from CPP

If a woman get's 70% of a man, and collects $700 per month and lives for 16 years after retirement, she'll collect $135,000 from CPP

If that woman makes the same income as me, she'll collect $192,000 from CPP

P.S - ...and what about survivors pension that'll you'll collect after i'm long buried?

cybercoma · October 17, 2014

What's the bigger number?

Hal 9000 · October 17, 2014

What's the bigger number?

81.

waldo · October 17, 2014

your life expectancy numbers don't agree with those used by/within the CPP... I posted the actual table... you seem to have chosen to ignore it:

You used a chart showing a projection of what % of people (of either sex) will live to what age. I posted the average life expectancy because I believe it's a more relevant way of establishing how much CPP will likely be paid out to each sex. I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it tells the complete story. Even if it did, women still live and collect pensions longer than men.

again, women living longer wasn't being disputed; however... you don't get to make up your interpretations and provide your own life expectany numbers in the face of being presented the CPP numbers. You say the table projects a percentage... it has nothing to do with percentages. That table is providing the life expectancy numbers for actual beneficiaries drawing CPP. Read the footnote; re; cohort reference. For 2013 the life expectancy differential is 2.7 years in favour of females... for 2025 it's 2.6 years... for 2050 it's 2.5 years... for 2075 it's 2.4 years. Hey now... do you see a pattern here?

.

waldo · October 17, 2014

If any woman makes only 71% of men, that's completely on her.

this is nothing more than you showing your complete ignorance on the lower wage influences women face; notwithstanding, equal pay for equal work is most certainly not a universal dictum!

WestCoastRunner · October 17, 2014

In what way exactly is it a mans world? This isn't the 50's anymore.

Seriously? You want me to trot out the inequalities that women face? This is so boring. You must be living in the 50s.

However, I would love to hear the perks that women enjoy in today's society. Please do tell!

waldo · October 17, 2014

If I get 1000$ per month and live 9 years, I'll collect 108,000$ from CPP

If a woman get's 70% of a man, and collects $700 per month and lives for 16 years after retirement, she'll collect $135,000 from CPP

wtf! In your own determined life-expectancy you've gone from 4, to 5, to 6 and now a 7 years differential! Per the CPP table you chose to ignore, using the 2013 differential of 2.7 years... using your example... you'll collect $108K; a woman will collect $98K

.

Bonam · October 17, 2014

Holy crap this thread is stupid. Everyone is talking right past each other and clearly ignoring each others points. So freaking dumb. You guys on opposite sides of this aren't even talking about the same things. It's just ridiculous.

Good illustration of the problem of modern politics, people pretend to debate with each other, but really they are just yelling into the wind past each other, operating in separate universes of facts and assumptions.

waldo · October 17, 2014

Holy crap this thread is stupid. Everyone is talking right past each other and clearly ignoring each others points. So freaking dumb. You guys on opposite sides of this aren't even talking about the same things. It's just ridiculous.

Good illustration of the problem of modern politics, people pretend to debate with each other, but really they are just yelling into the wind past each other, operating in separate universes of facts and assumptions.

says the guy claiming "the math is simple"... says the guy providing no actual numbers.

August1991 · October 17, 2014

Given the same lifetime payment into CPP, and other circumstances being equal, two people of either gender will draw the same monthly CPP benefit. Whoever lives longer will therefore get the most from CPP over the course of their life.

Of course, those who earn less in their career will get less from CPP, but they also paid in less, duh. (This seems to be the entire point presented by cybercoma and waldo and is clearly irrelevant to the discussion, since the discussion should obviously be normalized for income).

Neither of the above statements require "data", just a quick look at how CPP is calculated and some very basic math.

That being said, personally, I think it's fine that men and women get the same monthly amount from CPP if they had the same average salary throughout their career, even though this means women will on average get more (than men of equal income history) out of CPP due to living longer. Why am I fine with this? Because one's life expectancy depends on a whole ton of different factors....

I have to agree, and I would extend your argument further. CPP is a transfer scheme, social insurance.

My wonder (and question even to you) is why we don't extend this concept to all 7 billion people in the world. Waldo seems to think that Canadian women receive less than their just share. What about, uh, Bangladeshi men?

Edited October 17, 2014 by August1991

August1991 · October 17, 2014

Holy crap this thread is stupid. Everyone is talking right past each other and clearly ignoring each others points. So freaking dumb. You guys on opposite sides of this aren't even talking about the same things. It's just ridiculous.

Good illustration of the problem of modern politics, people pretend to debate with each other, but really they are just yelling into the wind past each other, operating in separate universes of facts and assumptions.

I glanced through this thread and Bonam, I have to agree.

Most posters are saying: "Go Habs Go!"

Edited October 17, 2014 by August1991

bush_cheney2004 · October 17, 2014

...My wonder (and question even to you) is why we don't extend this concept to all 7 billion people in the world. Waldo seems to think that Canadian women receive less than their just share. What about, uh, Bangladeshi men?

Well, to extend the absurdity further, provinces will pay for gender/sexual assignment surgery and therapy for those men wishing for women's CPP advantages.

waldo · October 17, 2014

Waldo seems to think that Canadian women receive less than their just share. What about, uh, Bangladeshi men?

"their just share"??? Do you have numbers that might speak to "share" regardless of your attached "justness"? But why make shyte up? I've not spoken to the particular "justness" you're attributing... I might yet, if any of you Harper Conservative supporters clamoring for women to contribute more to CPP could actually step-up, provide numbers... and make a related argument (to those numbers) to support your expressed wants for women to contribute more to CPP. Still waiting on that... is there a problem?

Bangladeshi men??? Why degrade your own thread with moronic nonsense?