Should Women/Men Pay Different Rates for the CPP?

[Hal 9000]

I have answered these questions already in my posts.

Answer them now...or admit you can't.

[cybercoma]

Answer them now...or admit you can't.

Not until you address the massive holes in your argument that I've exposed with documented empirical evidence.

Answer them now. It has been answered already. Numerous times. It's time and has been time for many pages for you to answer for the falsehood that women draw more CPP.

[Hal 9000]

Not until you address the massive holes in your argument that I've exposed with documented empirical evidence.

Answer them now. It has been answered already. Numerous times. It's time and has been time for many pages for you to answer for the falsehood that women draw more CPP.

Citing a special interest group is not empirical evidence.

If there is a question you'd like me to answer, ask it!

I've asked you 2 point blank questions and you refuse to answer.

[Hal 9000]

Not until you address the massive holes in your argument that I've exposed with documented empirical evidence.

Answer them now. It has been answered already. Numerous times. It's time and has been time for many pages for you to answer for the falsehood that women draw more CPP.

You're too smart to answer my 2 questions, I'll give you that much!

Edited October 19, 2014 by Hal 9000

[cybercoma]

Citing a special interest group is not empirical evidence.

If there is a question you'd like me to answer, ask it!

I've asked you 2 point blank questions and you refuse to answer.

I've provided over half a dozen references to different sources. The special interest group's presentation has researched papers backing it up. You can feel free to look those up if you want more details. Their numbers are from Statistics Canada.

You keep whining about me answering your questions. They've been answered. I'm the one that provided links to the Service Canada page that explains how contributions are made. I've also addressed these in terms of women living longer. There's only so much I can do to explain things to you. It's your turn to put a little effort into understanding.

You've made a very clear claim. That women draw more CPP than men. I've addressed this over and over again with data and evidence that easily verifiable.

You know what you've done to support your claim? Squat.

So put up the numbers or run along because you're wasting my time now.

[Hal 9000]

I've provided over half a dozen references to different sources. The special interest group's presentation has researched papers backing it up. You can feel free to look those up if you want more details. Their numbers are from Statistics Canada.

You keep whining about me answering your questions. They've been answered. I'm the one that provided links to the Service Canada page that explains how contributions are made. I've also addressed these in terms of women living longer. There's only so much I can do to explain things to you. It's your turn to put a little effort into understanding.

You've made a very clear claim. That women draw more CPP than men. I've addressed this over and over again with data and evidence that easily verifiable.

You know what you've done to support your claim? Squat.

So put up the numbers or run along because you're wasting my time now.

Yes or no buddy, that's all it takes and we can move forward from there.

[cybercoma]

Yes or no buddy, that's all it takes and we can move forward from there.

You still have a request on the table. The request was to show empirically verifiable support that women draw more CPP. I will humour your obnoxious request once you've supported your claims.

[waldo]

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

men and women pay the same percentage rate... which, of course, implies that a larger proportion of women's (versus men's) earnings are contributed because women's earnings are typically lower. This disproportionate level of contributed earnings is at the cost of reducing women's discretionary income during working years.

[cybercoma]

Percentage is a proportion, waldo.

[jbg]

Percentage is a proportion, waldo.

Thanks for explaining. I am sure Waldo will appreciate the lesson.

[waldo]

Percentage is a proportion, waldo.

I offered qualification that the same contribution percentages do not have a proportional affect on earnings and subsequent discretionary income.

[waldo]

Thanks for explaining. I am sure Waldo will appreciate the lesson.

why carry your disgruntled self over from the other thread where you've just had 'it handed to you'... are you that petty?

[jbg]

why carry your disgruntled self over from the other thread where you've just had 'it handed to you'... are you that petty?

What thread?

[cybercoma]

I offered qualification that the same contribution percentages do not have a proportional affect on earnings and subsequent discretionary income.

I understand your point, but I think someone who's not reading to understand your point is going to miss it. I believe what you're trying to say is a flat tax (in this case everyone paying an equal percentage into CPP) has a disproportionately negative affect on lower income earners. In this case, women are lower income earners, so it's more difficult for them to pay that proportion of their wage than someone who earns more money. $2000 out of $20,000 leaves a person struggling even more to provide for themselves than $20,000 out of $200,000. Someone with $180,000 left over has enough money to live comfortably. They're not stung as badly by the 10% reduction in earnings.

All of this is quite beside the point though. Everyone pays the same proportion of their income into CPP, but women earn less. That means women pay less into CPP and therefore receive less benefits as a result. They also draw more from OAS because they disproportionately live in poverty as compared to men. So the entire crux of the argument, that women are somehow unfairly receiving more from federal pensions than they should is horse crap.

[waldo]

men and women pay the same percentage rate... which, of course, implies that a larger proportion of women's (versus men's) earnings are contributed because women's earnings are typically lower. This disproportionate level of contributed earnings is at the cost of reducing women's discretionary income during working years.

I understand your point, but I think someone who's not reading to understand your point is going to miss it. I believe what you're trying to say is a flat tax (in this case everyone paying an equal percentage into CPP) has a disproportionately negative affect on lower income earners. In this case, women are lower income earners, so it's more difficult for them to pay that proportion of their wage than someone who earns more money. $2000 out of $20,000 leaves a person struggling even more to provide for themselves than $20,000 out of $200,000. Someone with $180,000 left over has enough money to live comfortably. They're not stung as badly by the 10% reduction in earnings.

which is just what I said! No harm in you adding further qualification... regardless of your improper/incorrect heightened focus on percentage/proportion... which, on it's own added nothing.

All of this is quite beside the point though. Everyone pays the same proportion of their income into CPP, but women earn less. That means women pay less into CPP and therefore receive less benefits as a result. They also draw more from OAS because they disproportionately live in poverty as compared to men. So the entire crux of the argument, that women are somehow unfairly receiving more from federal pensions than they should is horse crap.

it's not beside the point for those clamoring for that percentage rate to be increased... only for females. Speaking to the disproportionate discretionary income impact the current equal rates have on females is the reference point against which to guage an increased rate against.

.

[cybercoma]

Looking at the poll, there's only 2 people out of 11 who think that anyway. So we're only preaching to the choir here.

[Bonam]

Looking at the poll, there's only 2 people out of 11 who think that anyway. So we're only preaching to the choir here.

Or there's the relatively silent majority who understand the obvious point made rather than trying to obfuscate the issue by failing at basic logic and math, but nonetheless think the current situation is fine, as I explained in my first post in this thread.

[waldo]

you speak of your first post in this thread... this post:

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.

let me repeat my initial reply to that post... the one you chose to ignore/blow off:

"other circumstances being equal"??? Is this just your catch-all caveat or do you have specific circumstances in mind? Regardless, are they... equal? Please clarify exactly what you mean by "a discussion normalized for income" and how that factors into contribution, calculation, benefits, etc.

Or there's the relatively silent majority who understand the obvious point made rather than trying to obfuscate the issue by failing at basic logic and math, but nonetheless think the current situation is fine, as I explained in my first post in this thread.

you initially said the math was "very basic"... yet through all this you've not provided "very basic" numbers of any kind... "other circumstances being equal" and all!

[Bonam]

you initially said the math was "very basic"... yet through all this you've not provided "very basic" numbers of any kind... "other circumstances being equal" and all!

That's correct. Why would I bother?

[August1991]

Everyone pays the same proportion of their income into CPP, but women earn less. That means women pay less into CPP and therefore receive less benefits as a result.

Ok, Cybercoma. Let's assume that I have a more expensive house than you so my insurance rates are higher than yours. But you take care of your house while I don't. Who should pay the higher insurance premium? You or me?

IOW, taking another approach to the question, women have a less valuable asset but they take care more of it (since they live longer).

In the OP, I merely asked the question whether men and women should pay different CPP rates since women live longer. That's all.

They also draw more from OAS because they disproportionately live in poverty as compared to men. So the entire crux of the argument, that women are somehow unfairly receiving more from federal pensions than they should is horse crap.

Arguably true but likely to confuse further the thread. Edited October 21, 2014 by August1991

[waldo]

That's correct. Why would I bother?

clearly! Why should you bother to explain what you mean by "a discussion normalized for income" and how that factors into contribution, calculation, benefits, etc. Clearly, why should you bother to answer whether your applied caveat, "other circumstances being equal", was valid. In your described comparisons of persons working career earnings, should someone earning less in their working career pay the same contribution rate of their earnings into CPP as someone earning more in their working career, and if so, why so?

[waldo]

In the OP, I merely asked the question whether men and women should pay different CPP rates since women live longer. That's all.

no - you stated women are more likely to make a larger pension claim... since they live longer then men... and you asked whether, accordingly, women should pay higher contribution premiums. You stated all that and failed to provide any substantiation that it was correct; you've been challenged to do so and you have yet to do so.

Ok, Cybercoma. Let's assume that I have a more expensive house than you so my insurance rates are higher than yours. But you take care of your house while I don't. Who should pay the higher insurance premium? You or me?

IOW, taking another approach to the question, women have a less valuable asset but they take care more of it (since they live longer).

notwithstanding your moronic house/insurance reference that you're taking "another approach" to, what does your stated "women have a less valuable asset" even mean?

[Hal 9000]

no - you stated women are more likely to make a larger pension claim... since they live longer then men... and you asked whether, accordingly, women should pay higher contribution premiums. You stated all that and failed to provide any substantiation that it was correct; you've been challenged to do so and you have yet to do so.

notwithstanding your moronic house/insurance reference that you're taking "another approach" to, what does your stated "women have a less valuable asset" even mean?

If you read the actuarial report (and I think it was you who directed me there) with any amount of common sense, you can only conclude that the ROI for women is greater than that of men.

[waldo]

If you read the actuarial report (and I think it was you who directed me there) with any amount of common sense, you can only conclude that the ROI for women is greater than that of men.

do you have data/numbers to go along with your expressed common sense reading?

[cybercoma]

Or there's the relatively silent majority who understand the obvious point made rather than trying to obfuscate the issue by failing at basic logic and math, but nonetheless think the current situation is fine, as I explained in my first post in this thread.

The point that women draw more CPP when they don't? The only posters obfuscating things here are people like you who don't have a single piece of evidence to support your claims. I'm sorry if it's so difficult for you to understand why that's completely wrong that you think the explanation is "ofuscating the issue." Maybe you could dig up some numbers that support your claims that you think or so obvious.