Should Women/Men Pay Different Rates for the CPP?

waldo · October 17, 2014

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.

why would a (claimed) American care about Canada's Pension Plan or actually know what Canadian provinces may include the coverage you speak to? But since you are so caring, what are those "women's CPP advantages" you speak to? Do you have numbers? :lol:

cybercoma · 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'm talking about the explicit claim that women earn more CPP than men. I've asked repeatedly for anything to substantiate this. People keep throwing around life expectancy as if this proves that women make more CPP than men. It doesn't for all the reasons I listed earlier, not the least of which is that women don't earn as much as men, women are less likely to work full-time, and women are more likely to be dependant upon men for their financial well-being. This means when it comes time to collect CPP, regardless of them living longer, they will earn less because on average they make less and spend fewer years in their careers. What you draw from CPP is directly connected to how much you contribute. How much you contribute is connected to how much you work. Women work less in paid employment and earn less when they do; therefore, they draw less from CPP, despite living 2.5 years longer, according to the actuarial numbers posted by waldo.

You know what I get in response to this? "But women live longer."

I address that explicitly in my argument. I've accounted for it. I've shown why it doesn't matter that women on average live longer than men. I'm not talking past anyone. HAL is simply sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "LA LA LA! I can't hear you!"

Edited October 17, 2014 by cybercoma

cybercoma · October 17, 2014

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?

Why doesn't your QPP extend to the rest of Canada?

Actually it does. QPP benefits can be transferred to the CPP and vice versa. If you live outside Canada, you can draft up a social security agreement with your country of origin to have your benefits transferred to CPP.

Edited October 17, 2014 by cybercoma

Hal 9000 · October 17, 2014

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!

Well, yes i do. Ive asked you to provide a list of jobs that pay women 70% of what they pay men and never seen that list.

Hal 9000 · October 17, 2014

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

.

Your claim is based on those who actually make it to 65 years of life, how about the people that pay into CPP and die before ever collecting a penny?

WestCoastRunner · October 17, 2014

Well, yes i do. Ive asked you to provide a list of jobs that pay women 70% of what they pay men and never seen that list.

That's not what you asked but I will give it anyway. However, I do want that list of perks for women and where I can sign up!

Claims adjusters, appraisers, examiners, and investigators - Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 69.3%

Inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers and weighers - Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 69.2%

Security, commodities, and financial services sales agents

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 69.1%

Marketing and sales managers

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 67.7%

Physicians and surgeons

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 67.6%

Education administrators

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 67.2%

Personal financial advisers

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 66.3%

Real-estate brokers and sales agents

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 66.0%

Retail salespersons

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 64.3%

Insurance agents

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 62.5%

Women median weekly earnings: $641

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-jobs-where-women-are-most-underpaid-2013-11-15

I can find some more if you like. However, I am getting tired of doing your research.

Edited October 17, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

The_Squid · October 17, 2014

Your claim is based on those who actually make it to 65 years of life, how about the people that pay into CPP and die before ever collecting a penny?

What about them? That has nothing to do with anything in this thread.

Your claim: Women draw more CPP.

Show the stats to prove your claim. Simple, no?

The_Squid · October 17, 2014

That's not what you asked but I will give it anyway. However, I do want that list of perks for women and where I can sign up!

Claims adjusters, appraisers, examiners, and investigators - Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 69.3%

Inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers and weighers - Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 69.2%

Security, commodities, and financial services sales agents

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 69.1%

Marketing and sales managers

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 67.7%

Physicians and surgeons

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 67.6%

Education administrators

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 67.2%

Personal financial advisers

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 66.3%

Real-estate brokers and sales agents

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 66.0%

Retail salespersons

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 64.3%

Insurance agents

Women’s earnings as percentage of men’s: 62.5%

Women median weekly earnings: $641

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-jobs-where-women-are-most-underpaid-2013-11-15

I can find some more if you like. However, I am getting tired of doing your research.

Not that any of what you posted matters at all to the OP claim.... but...

Are those Canadian figures? I doubt that they are.

cybercoma · October 17, 2014

Not that any of what you posted matters at all to the OP claim.... but...

It does because the amount you can draw from CPP is directly related to the amount you contribute. Your contributions are a percentage of your earnings. Therefore, women's earnings are directly related to the amount they can draw from CPP. Women earn less than men. That means women draw less from CPP than men.

The_Squid · October 17, 2014

It does because the amount you can draw from CPP is directly related to the amount you contribute. Your contributions are a percentage of your earnings. Therefore, women's earnings are directly related to the amount they can draw from CPP. Women earn less than men. That means women draw less from CPP than men.

The fact that they aren't Canadian figures essentially makes them worthless, even if the argument is sound.

But it's neither here nor there, since the right-wing posters that are making the claim need to actually show evidence for the claim that women draw more from CPP.

Edited October 17, 2014 by The_Squid

bush_cheney2004 · October 17, 2014

Are those Canadian figures? I doubt that they are.

Of course not....they are from the U.S. (Bureau of Labor Statistics). It's very hard to get Canadian content around here !

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-jobs-where-women-are-most-underpaid-2013-11-15

The_Squid · October 17, 2014

Of course not....they are from the U.S. (Bureau of Labor Statistics). It's very hard to get Canadian content around here !

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-jobs-where-women-are-most-underpaid-2013-11-15

I know. Using stats from a foreign country to back up a claim about Canada isn't very useful. Probably an honest mistake though, compared to the people in this thread making claims about CPP but then just changing the question, introducing red herrings or just ignoring their own claims all together.

cybercoma · October 17, 2014

I know. Using stats from a foreign country to back up a claim about Canada isn't very useful. Probably an honest mistake though, compared to the people in this thread making claims about CPP but then just changing the question, introducing red herrings or just ignoring their own claims all together.

It's not much different.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2010-30-e.htm

waldo · October 17, 2014

Of course not....they are from the U.S. (Bureau of Labor Statistics). It's very hard to get Canadian content around here !

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-jobs-where-women-are-most-underpaid-2013-11-15

are they much different... to warrant your cross-border monitoring? Care to speak to the difference... since you're monitoring? :lol:

waldo · October 17, 2014

It's not much different.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2010-30-e.htm

I trust the data monitor police will confirm your findings!

waldo · October 17, 2014

Your claim is based on those who actually make it to 65 years of life, how about the people that pay into CPP and die before ever collecting a penny?

my "claim" was to show you had a most liberal (and increasing) account of women's life expectancy... again, through your posts you've spoken of that life expectancy as between 4 and (with your post I replied to) 7 years greater than male life-expectancy. My "claim" was to use your exact example and use the actual life-expectancy figure for 2013 as exists within the CPP actuarial tables... 2.7 years.

with this your latest comment, your "claim" is to introduce an unrelated point that has no bearing on the prior discussion. Now, if you'd like to draw significance to your statement about conributors dying before drawing benefits, please step up and provide numbers that speak to exactly that. You know, provide something other than blanket statements devoid of any meaningful data component.

bush_cheney2004 · October 17, 2014

It's not much different.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2010-30-e.htm

Oh...why didn't you say so earlier. This way we can always use 'merkin data to represent statistics for Canada.

Think of the money that will save. Brilliant !

waldo · October 17, 2014

Oh...why didn't you say so earlier. This way we can always use 'merkin data to represent statistics for Canada.

Think of the money that will save. Brilliant !

you mean you didn't know this? You mean you simply jumped on someone for daring to draw reference to an American source? Of course, this is simply you being you, where you actually have nothing to contribute... where you simply choose to stir the shyte! The long tired history of you doing this, repeatedly doing this, doing it from thread to thread, from month to month, year to year... because someone dares to draw a reference to an American data source! Again, thanks for your service.

bush_cheney2004 · October 17, 2014

Actually, another member challenged the relevance of U.S. data in a discussion about Canadian CPP and occupation earnings for men and women. All we can truly say is that...yes...both Canada and the USA have men and women in the workforce.

It never ceases to amaze me how American references are so readily adopted for such Canadian topics, except when they really get their 'merkin hate on. :lol:

waldo · October 17, 2014

It never ceases to amaze me how American references are so readily adopted for such Canadian topics

nice try! Yes, this is a more pointed Canadian focused reference to the CPP; however, in the context of women earning less than men, that is a common and well known circumstance shared between the U.S. and Canada. The exact numeric differences between the 2 countries are not of consequence to the level of this thread's discussion. In any case, the point of shared like commonality was confirmed through a subsequent reference provided.

what's your rationale for data monitoring of those discussions that aren't particularly Canadian focused... where drawing reference to an American data source isn't germain to the discussion at hand? And why do you so protect the sanctity of "American data sources"? :lol:

why did you stop there? You usually draw this nonsense of yours out to the point of highlighting "America's Google" is being used!!!

guyser · October 17, 2014

It never ceases to amaze me how American references are so readily adopted for such Canadian topics, except when they really get their 'merkin hate on.

Small minded trolls are easy to amaze.

So...ya got that going for you...which is nice.

bush_cheney2004 · October 17, 2014

I stand corrected...."America sucks...but we need its data !!"..... to discuss CPP.

WestCoastRunner · October 17, 2014

I'm not going to defend my use of the stats from Market Watch. We all know there is not much wage disparity difference between Canada and the States. And a few folks here have indicated and presented such evidence.

I think that perhaps the member who posted this OP in the first place should provide more concrete data to support the question. Also, the OP was addressing two issues, car insurance and CPP. It really wasn't a very well thought out or well presented OP. All it does it put up a barrier between men and women with no conclusive data presented. Perhaps that was the purpose of the OP?

guyser · October 17, 2014

I think that perhaps the member who posted this OP in the first place should provide more concrete data to support the question.

Good idea.

Also, the OP was addressing two issues, car insurance and CPP. It really wasn't a very well thought out or well presented OP.

Somehow I missed that .

In that case, the OP is wrong. Men over the age of 25 are treated the same as women, in other words no difference.

So what do we have, 2 wrong opions in a 2 opinion post? Batting 1.000 I see.

bush_cheney2004 · October 17, 2014

I'm not going to defend my use of the stats from Market Watch. We all know there is not much wage disparity difference between Canada and the States. And a few folks here have indicated and presented such evidence.

Of course....it is a routine behaviour for Canadians to use American data to draw conclusions, right or wrong. And according to this CBC story (which also refers to the American data), this time it is wrong:

And it's not just in the U.S. According to Statistics Canada, women continue to earn 70 per cent of what men earn on average annually in this country.

-------------

It turns out the wage gap is more severe in Canada than in the U.S., according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Canadian men on average get paid more than 20% more than their female colleagues, giving the country one of the highest gender gaps among the 30 OECD nations.

Only Korea, Japan and Germany rank higher than Canada in paying men more than women. Canada is in fourth place along with the United Kingdom, according to Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development statistics.

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/equal-pay-for-equal-work-a-look-at-the-wage-gap-between-men-and-women-in-va

Edited October 17, 2014 by bush_cheney2004