Paul Martin Steals Pension funds for tax break!

[err]

Paul Martin is funding his pre-election vote-buying tax-grab with money stolen from public service unions pension funds.

Unions want Ottawa to return pension funds

Paul Martin stole this money from the pension funds as finance minister to fund his deficit reduction, and never paid it back. Now he's promising the old age pensioners funds as a tax-grab to buy votes in the upcoming election.... but he's not in a hurry to return the stolen funds.

And on top of that, corporate Canada and our weathiest 1% of the population is going to get over 80% of that money....

Paul Martin has absolutely no scruples.....

[Riverwind]

Paul Martin is funding his pre-election vote-buying tax-grab with money stolen from public service unions pension funds.

Who is responsible for any deficit in the pension fund? I beleive it is the government. Therefore for the government is entitled to any surplus.

If the unions want have control over surpluses they should be responsible for any deficits. It is that simple.

[err]

Paul Martin is funding his pre-election vote-buying tax-grab with money stolen from public service unions pension funds.

Who is responsible for any deficit in the pension fund? I beleive it is the government. Therefore for the government is entitled to any surplus.

They're responsible for federal funding of health care... but there's not enough to keep hospitals open and hire doctors, because they gave our surpluses to Corp. Canada... I think it should be obvious that they can not be trusted.

[Riverwind]

They're responsible for federal funding of health care... but there's not enough to keep hospitals open and hire doctors, because they gave our surpluses to Corp. Canada... I think it should be obvious that they can not be trusted.

So are you saying the union will take 100% responsibily for any deficit if the surplus is returned? The union cannot have its cake an eat it too: either take responsibilty for any deficit or stop whining about surpluses.

[err]

So are you saying the union will take 100% responsibily for any deficit if the surplus is returned? The union cannot have its cake an eat it too: either take responsibilty for any deficit or stop whining about surpluses.

I'm not goint to suggest how the union might act in a future hypothetical situation... I'm saying that Paul Martin did not have the right to take $30Billion from the pension fund.

[Riverwind]

I'm not goint to suggest how the union might act in a future hypothetical situation... I'm saying that Paul Martin did not have the right to take $30Billion from the pension fund.

If the government is legally required to make up any deficit in the pension fund then Martin not only had a right to use the surplus he had an obligation to do so.

[fellowtraveller]

Just imagine what our country would look like if we were not spending $27 billion every year on interest payments on the national debt.

$27 billion. Every year.

Hey, we could ask Alberta how it looks.

[Toro]

This money is not "stolen" but there is a question about whether or not the government has the right to take it. I don't know if in Canadian law the assets belong to the union. I recall a case a few decades ago concerning Conrad Black and Dominion Foods where Black took the surplus out of the fund. I thought the court ruled in Black's favour, but I don't recall exactly. Either way, the government is responsible for the liabilities of the pension fund. If the government takes the surplus, and in subsequent years the fund falls into deficit, then the government is legally responsible for that deficit in the pension fund.

[Guest eureka]

You are right in your recollection, Toro. The ruling did favour Black.

[August1991]

Just imagine what our country would look like if we were not spending $27 billion every year on interest payments on the national debt.

$27 billion.  Every year.

Hey, we could ask Alberta how it looks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are paying lower interest on debt than you or I would ever get if we negotiated the borrowing individually. And keep in mind that by borrowing that money, the federal government didn't have to tax us -n leaving us with more money in our pockets.

fellowtraveller, the problem is not the debt or the interest on the debt. The problem is: what do we have to show for the money the federal government spent? IOW, the question is not whether the government runs a budget deficit or a budget surplus, it is whether the government is spending our money wisely.

I say that when several billion get "lost" in HRDC handouts, or wasted in gun registries, then we are not getting value for money.

----

Paul Martin stole this money from the pension funds as finance minister to fund his deficit reduction, and never paid it back. Now he's promising the old age pensioners funds as a tax-grab to buy votes in the upcoming election.... but he's not in a hurry to return the stolen funds.

This thread merely highlights the difficulty - if not impossibility - of determining the true debt position of the govedrnment. The government has a variety of commitments into the future. Should these commitments be actualized and calculated as a current liability? One can play around with these numbers as one wants - excluding or including future pension payments for example - and present almost any fiscal picture one desires.

[FTA Lawyer]

Just imagine what our country would look like if we were not spending $27 billion every year on interest payments on the national debt.

$27 billion.  Every year.

Hey, we could ask Alberta how it looks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are paying lower interest on debt than you or I would ever get if we negotiated the borrowing individually. And keep in mind that by borrowing that money, the federal government didn't have to tax us -n leaving us with more money in our pockets.

fellowtraveller, the problem is not the debt or the interest on the debt. The problem is: what do we have to show for the money the federal government spent? IOW, the question is not whether the government runs a budget deficit or a budget surplus, it is whether the government is spending our money wisely.

I say that when several billion get "lost" in HRDC handouts, or wasted in gun registries, then we are not getting value for money.

----

Paul Martin stole this money from the pension funds as finance minister to fund his deficit reduction, and never paid it back. Now he's promising the old age pensioners funds as a tax-grab to buy votes in the upcoming election.... but he's not in a hurry to return the stolen funds.

This thread merely highlights the difficulty - if not impossibility - of determining the true debt position of the govedrnment. The government has a variety of commitments into the future. Should these commitments be actualized and calculated as a current liability? One can play around with these numbers as one wants - excluding or including future pension payments for example - and present almost any fiscal picture one desires.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent post August.

FTA