Should Women/Men Pay Different Rates for the CPP?

[Hal 9000]

The pensions are directly tied to income, my assertion is the ratio of money paid in vs. money taken out. I think you're discrediting many factors at work here.

Your link is from a Nova Scotia women's group attempting to pay women more pensions and EI benefits based on non-paying working roles...basically motherhood. Whether one agrees with the sentiment or not, it's an agenda more than anything.

I agree with a lot of things mentioned in that article such as the tax issues, but some of it is straight up propaganda.

[cybercoma]

In other words, you have no idea how CPP works.

[August1991]

What you draw from CPP is directly connected to how much you contribute.

Cybercoma, that statement is wrong and hence, your thinking is also misguided.

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.

But women live longer than men.

Hence, women receive more than men.

===

CPP is a Defined Benefits Plan. Since women on average live longer than men, women benefit more than men since contributions do not change according to sex (or smoking habits, for that matter).

Edited October 19, 2014 by August1991

[Hal 9000]

I've stated that nobody has put forward any real stats that shed light to the issue and your here buying hook, line and sinker the obviously bias report from a women's group in Halifax as proof positive of whatever it is you're arguing.

I learned long ago to question reports from special interest groups who have an agenda. Just like the report I debunked last night, this report is salted to skew the results. I would like to see the actual data and not just the headlines.

[August1991]

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

But less than 25, insurance premiums are different.

[August1991]

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!

There are many, many reasons for wage differentials.

Hockey players earn more than teachers. Mechanics earn more than bricklayers. Women fashion models earn more than male models.

Well, oranges are more expensive than bananas. But different people value the two fruits differently, and different people benefit from their eating.

WestCoastRunner, you confuse "value" and "price". Oscar Wilde knew the difference.

[waldo]

There are many, many reasons for wage differentials.

WestCoastRunner, you confuse "value" and "price". Oscar Wilde knew the difference.

in terms of your "value and price" criteria, how would you rationalize the gender wage gap between men and women?

[waldo]

I've stated that nobody has put forward any real stats

thanks Captain Obvious... that point has been made repeatedly throughout the thread. Somehow, all those stating women should contribute... more... to CPP because "they draw more", somehow... those doing so can't actually step-up with numbers to confirm their statement/rationale.

[August1991]

My mom only worked during the seasonal months of the year. She raised all her and my dad's children and was there to support the grandchildren. I don't recall her living in splendour drawing on her CPP, even after her husband passed away. However, I do know she raised successful children who now contribute to the tax base of the cities they live in.

Now, there's an argument that makes sense.

In general, since the government got involved in calculating such statistics, men's work is counted, taxed, official. Nowadays, for some reason, women's work is not counted, not taxed, not official.

And yet, before 1920, both women and men were considered to be workers, important contributers and recognized as such.

=====

But this has noting to do with my OP.

[waldo]

Cybercoma, that statement is wrong and hence, your thinking is also misguided.

you are saying MLW member cybercoma's statement is wrong... this statement: "What you draw from CPP is directly connected to how much you contribute".

per Service Canada:

The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) uses your contributions to determine whether you and/or your family are eligible for a CPP benefit and, if so, what the amount of the benefit will be.

Important factors are how long and how much you contribute. Usually, the more you earn and contribute to the CPP in the years before you take your retirement pension, the higher the benefit will be, because you have built up more CPP pension credits.

[waldo]

But this has noting to do with my OP.

you mean your OP that started off with a statement you have yet to substantiate with any detail/information/numbers... this OP of yours, as follows:

Women, on average, live longer than men. Hence, women are more likely to make a larger pension claim.

Should women pay higher premiums when paying into the CPP?

.

[Hal 9000]

thanks Captain Obvious... that point has been made repeatedly throughout the thread. Somehow, all those stating women should contribute... more... to CPP because "they draw more", somehow... those doing so can't actually step-up with numbers to confirm their statement/rationale.

I know it's obvious, don't know why people like Cyber keep trying to put up crap as proof. And...I've never claimed even once that women should pay more...so...I don't know why you're addressing me on this.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Hal 9000

[waldo]

I know it's obvious, don't know why people like Cyber keep trying to put up crap as proof. And...I've never claimed even once that women should pay more...so...I don't know why you're addressing me on this.

nice try! MLW member 'cybercoma' has rightly been challenging others to support their statements with actual data.

do you think just because you (belatedly) stated you were playing "devil's advocate", that gives you a pass on your preceding comments? Preceding comments like where you tried to leverage life expectancy to claim women's CPP draw benefits are greater than men's... would you like those related comments quoted back for you?

Edited October 19, 2014 by waldo

[Hal 9000]

nice try! MLW member 'cybercoma' has rightly been challenging others to support their statements with actual data.

do you think just because you (belatedly) stated you were playing "devil's advocate", that gives you a pass on your preceding comments? Preceding comments like where you tried to leverage life expectancy to claim women's CPP draw benefits are greater than men's... would you like those related comments quoted back for you?

I still think that the ratio of money put in vs. money paid out skews toward women. All cyber has been saying is that life expectancy doesn't matter.

Considering that there are more than 10% more men paying in to the system, and 7% more woman than men making initial claims. Add in the length of life factor and the mortality rate of men and women before retirement and I'd say logic shows that by ratio, women come out ahead in the money in vs money out department.

I don't need a pass for anything, just being truthful, however, If you can find where I said that women should pay more - good on ya!

[August1991]

you mean your OP that started off with a statement you have yet to substantiate with any detail/information/numbers... this OP of yours, as follows:

.

To me, this is obvious but here's a first attempt at evidence:

For all paid workers, the proportion of female RPP members is now higher than for men, a situation that had not been seen before 2005.

The gap in employment earnings between women and men has also narrowed over the last 40 years. The ratio of female to male average employment earnings stood at about 48 percent in 1966 and was 71 percent in 2006. It is expected that this ratio will further increase to 84 per cent by 2050. As a result of these trends, it could be expected that future generations of female retirees will have access to more adequate retirement income.

Ménard also noted that the gap in Canada Pension Plan (CPP) pensions between males and females is narrowing, even if it is not expected to disappear completely. He explained that some of the reasons for this are that “CPP contains several features that are designed to promote higher retirement income security for women. “

....

He also mentioned life expectancy as another aspect that differentiates women from men. “Women are living longer than men. Therefore they are expected to receive their retirement income for a longer period of time. At the inception of the Canada Pension Plan in 1966, women aged 65 lived 17 years more on average. Today they are living for an additional 21 years after the age of 65, and are expected to live for 24 years in 2050. Indeed, generally women live about 3 years longer than men.”

Link

"He also mentioned... " You gotta love that politically correct style.

------

This is the CPP/QPP. (I don't talk of the OAP or the GAINS, or the health system.) Moreover, the CPP has a cut off so it's an insurance scheme for low-income people. (It's like car insurance for Hyundai owners - but not drivers of BMWs.)

IOW, contribution rates are identical for someone poor but receiving CPP after 65 with a life expectancy to age 75, 3 extra years is a large difference in payments. The payout for women is about 30% greater.

------

I will grant this: statistics imply that married men live longer than single men. Some women share their longevity.

Edited October 19, 2014 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma, that statement is wrong and hence, your thinking is also misguided.

It certainly is not.

The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) uses your contributions to determine whether you and/or your family are eligible for a CPP benefit and, if so, what the amount of the benefit will be.

And

The amount you contribute is based on your employment income.

source: http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/services/pensions/cpp/contributions/

Feel free to clearly articulate how the amount you draw is not connected to how much you contribute, when the Service Canada CPP website clearly says otherwise.

[cybercoma]

But women live longer than men.

Hence, women receive more than men.

Since women contribute less, they draw less benefits. Full stop. The amount is actually $0.60 for every $1.00 that men draw from the plan (for the myriad reasons I've listed previously in this thread).

You and everyone else saying that women draw more are wrong. I've shown the numbers. I've explained why this is true. But you keep making these claims.

Put up the numbers or shut up. That's where we are now with this because I'm sick of showing all of you with evidence that your claim is utterly and completely incorrect for you guys to turn around and repeat it with nothing to support it.

A person who lives longer will draw CPP longer. Nobody is arguing against that. The problem you people can't wrap your heads around is the fact that women as a group, although they live longer on average, are contributing far less to CPP because as a group they also earn less, outnumber men more than 2 to 1 in low-paying part-time jobs with fewer hours, are more likely to not have contributions to CPP from raising children, and are more likely to take sick leaves to care for elderly parents. As a group, women do not contribute as much to CPP as men and since your contributions are used to determine your benefit, women receive a lower benefit than men. Even if they are living longer, they're still drawing far less from the fund than men.

Edited October 19, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I've stated that nobody has put forward any real stats that shed light to the issue and your here buying hook, line and sinker the obviously bias report from a women's group in Halifax as proof positive of whatever it is you're arguing.

I learned long ago to question reports from special interest groups who have an agenda. Just like the report I debunked last night, this report is salted to skew the results. I would like to see the actual data and not just the headlines.

You've provided nothing to support your claims and you have the nerve to question what has been researched and presented to Parliament by academics?

Put up the numbers or shut up. Until you show that women are drawing more from the CPP fund than men, I've provided far more evidence for the contrary than you have for your entirely incorrect assertion.

[cybercoma]

Now, there's an argument that makes sense.

In general, since the government got involved in calculating such statistics, men's work is counted, taxed, official. Nowadays, for some reason, women's work is not counted, not taxed, not official.

And yet, before 1920, both women and men were considered to be workers, important contributers and recognized as such.

=====

But this has noting to do with my OP.

This has everything to do with your OP! It's the counted and official work that is taxed and put into CPP/QPP contributions. All of that "unofficial" work that you recognize is not earning these women a pension!

[cybercoma]

I still think that the ratio of money put in vs. money paid out skews toward women.

Show it. Show the numbers. Stop saying and show it.

All cyber has been saying is that life expectancy doesn't matter.

You apparently are having trouble reading my posts. Maybe you should have someone read them to you. Because I never once said life expectancy doesn't matter. I have said repeatedly that nobody is arguing against that only for you to ignore all of the aggravating factors for women's pensions that completely wipe out the advantage of a longer life expectancy.

Considering that there are more than 10% more men paying in to the system, and 7% more woman than men making initial claims. Add in the length of life factor and the mortality rate of men and women before retirement and I'd say logic shows that by ratio, women come out ahead in the money in vs money out department.

Screw what you think passes for logic. Put up the numbers. It's a very simple claim with a simple figure to back it up. How much money do women draw from the CPP plan vs how much money men draw from the CPP plan. Take a look at those numbers per capita for the population over the age of 60 and you'll see just how little women are drawing from the pension plan. They both contribute less and receive less benefits as a result, regardless of their longer life expectancies. Edited October 19, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

To me, this is obvious but here's a first attempt at evidence:

Link

"He also mentioned... " You gotta love that politically correct style.

------

This is the CPP/QPP. (I don't talk of the OAP or the GAINS, or the health system.) Moreover, the CPP has a cut off so it's an insurance scheme for low-income people. (It's like car insurance for Hyundai owners - but not drivers of BMWs.)

IOW, contribution rates are identical for someone poor but receiving CPP after 65 with a life expectancy to age 75, 3 extra years is a large difference in payments. The payout for women is about 30% greater.

------

I will grant this: statistics imply that married men live longer than single men. Some women share their longevity.

You do know that entire article supports exactly what I'm saying, right? That there is a wage gap, a contribution gap, and a benefit gap between men and women. It has narrowed since the 1970s (duh), but it still exists. Your article actually claims that women earn less and receive less than men. That has been my point this entire time.

Edit: And I forgot to mention that an RPP is not CPP/QPP. An RPP is a pension plan provided by employers or unions for their employees. These are entirely different than CPP/QPP.

Edited October 19, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

The only reason you guys aren't putting up the numbers to support the argument that women are drawing more CPP than men because they live longer is because you can't. You've probably hunted and came across articles like this one that states women draw an average of $4906.56 to men's average of $7128.24 per year. Women are drawing on average less than 70% of what men are drawing. Or perhaps you came across this article from the Canadian Labour Congress that addresses the pension gap between men and women. That also mentions retired women earned 60% of what men did in pensions between 1991 and 2001. It also adds to the discussion by noting that poverty rates for retired women are double the rate for men. When they just looked at unattached men and women (not married or widowed), nearly half of those women were living in poverty.

Keep on perpetuating the harmful and stupid myth that women draw more in pensions though, guys. I can sit here all day and put up numbers showing that you're wrong.

[cybercoma]

At least the good news is that the gap is narrowing. So perhaps you all could feign indignation about some mythical future that doesn't exist yet where women's earnings overtake men's and they actually do draw more CPP.

[Hal 9000]

Two questions;

Would you agree that men and women pay the same percentages into CPP?

Would you agree that men and women take out the same percentages?

[cybercoma]

Two questions;

Would you agree that men and women pay the same percentages into CPP?

Would you agree that men and women take out the same percentages?

I have answered these questions already in my posts.