Mass Homelessness

[tweedledee]

Geoffies right! NO CPP or old age eether Why shood I pay for old peaple tobe lazy?

Well, CPP is based on employee/employer contributions, therefore lazy people who don't work, won't receive it will they !

Old age pension is a different matter, but if we eliminate that then there should be a drop in taxes to compensate, or maybe people should be required to pay into that too ?

If you look at the rate of return, CPP is a poor investment. CPP was great for those who retired in the earlier years of the program because they had low levels of contribution yet collected far more than they contributed upon retirement. The demographics have changed all that. The contribution rates have been jacked up and as a result contributors today would be better off if the scheme was collapsed and their premiums returned (with interest). A much better scheme would be if the employer & employeee contributions were mandatory, but invested in the fund of your choice (kind of a forced RRSP).

OAS is nothing but a disguised welfare scheme. In my view it should be collapsed into the welfare program to avoid the duplication of overhead, or eliminated altogether.

Disagree with that, OAS is needed by an awful lot of pensioners, no problem with it being clawed back based on income tho.

[Renegade]

Disagree with that, OAS is needed by an awful lot of pensioners, no problem with it being clawed back based on income tho.

Disagree with what? How does that make it any different than welfare?

[tweedledee]

Disagree with that, OAS is needed by an awful lot of pensioners, no problem with it being clawed back based on income tho.

Disagree with what? How does that make it any different than welfare?

I suppose its not, it just sounds better. Mebbe people should have to pay into it witha separate tax like in the U.S. OH no, not like the U.S....people with very low incomes still get it tho.

[Renegade]

Disagree with that, OAS is needed by an awful lot of pensioners, no problem with it being clawed back based on income tho.

Disagree with what? How does that make it any different than welfare?

I suppose its not, it just sounds better. Mebbe people should have to pay into it witha separate tax like in the U.S. OH no, not like the U.S....people with very low incomes still get it tho.

That was my point. Its really not any different than welfare with a different name when you look at it. If it looks like welfare, smells like welfare, and feels like welfare, why not just call it welfare and administer it the same way.

In the US people pay into Social Security. The analogy in Canada is CPP, which we do pay into.

[fryingpan]

WHY DO OUR COUNTRY’S LEADERS WANT TO SEE MASS HOMELESSNESS IN CANADA IN THE NEAR FUTURE?

inexplicably insist there is the lowest level of unemployment when it’s got to be the highest, since each poorly paid, part-time job advertised receives a thousand applications from over-qualified applicants) People have to accept salaries and wages that are at least $5k less than they made at their last job, or less.

seem to be deliberately producing a situation, that will cause mass homelessness in Canada in the near future. What reason could you possibly have for doing this?

Only one political leader, Connie Fogal, C.A.P. (Canadian Action Party) responded to my concern & said “It is a shame that this situation is being created & tolerated.”

The situation I was talking about: Unemployment.

Over a million Canadians, possibly over two million Canadians, WANT TO WORK and can’t find jobs.

No kidding, where I live the fast food restaurants get 5 applications a day, every day. They no longer bother putting up "Now Hiring" signs because they don't have to. About half of the people applying are teenagers, and the other half are over 30.

The fact that the Ontario Provincial government keeps raising minimum wage is NOT helping. The student wage here helps the teenagers find jobs, but if you're over 18, you may as well not bother applying. And even the teenagers under 18 have to struggle.

Here's an idea. If you want full employment, why not get rid of minimum wage? I have yet to meet someone who is literally worth nothing. Whoever wants a job would have no trouble finding one, there would be no excuse for unemployment.

Whoever says that Canada is at the lowest level of unemployment should look at northern Ontario.

[margrace]

WEll as far as the seniors pensions are concerned, I have been told that their families should take them in and look after them. After all thats who they belong to. I wonder how many young families in Southern Ontario are prepared to do that. Are you.

[Renegade]

WEll as far as the seniors pensions are concerned, I have been told that their families should take them in and look after them. After all thats who they belong to. I wonder how many young families in Southern Ontario are prepared to do that. Are you.

If my parents are destitute, sure I'd take them in. But for the most part I expect seniors should save for thieir own retirement. I will. I'm not expecting either the government nor my kids to look after me. Are you?

[margrace]

I am the senior in my family and worked hard all my life to give my kids a good opportunity. However I never had the opportunity to save much money so I value my old age pension. It wasn't until last year when I turned 70 that my daughters took me out of the country on a trip to visit cousins I had never seen

And you know what for the first time in my life I have a new sofa.

[Renegade]

I am the senior in my family and worked hard all my life to give my kids a good opportunity.

So would you agree then your kids have some moral obligation to support you?

However I never had the opportunity to save much money so I value my old age pension.

I don' t doubt you value it, but let's at least have the honesty to call it what it is.

[Army Guy]

Renegade

The whole notion of earning EI is nonsense. EI is insurance. As soon as you are part of the scheme you are entitled to insurance, regardless if you have contributed for 1 day or 40 years. (OK, not quite 1 day because of the minimium period) Conversely, if you are not legimately unemplolyed, you are not entitled to one penny, regardless if you have contributed for 40 years.

I've got a silly question, i've been employed in the military for some 26 years now, UI is regularly deducted of my pay check as with everyones,.however at a retirement seminar we were told that we can not collect UI as we would be recieving a pension. The only way we could effectivly collect UI is to get employed again and work for the required time...then and only then could we collect it,and only at the rate of our 2 and job.

So for some it's not an insurance plan but just another tax.

[Renegade]

Renegade

The whole notion of earning EI is nonsense. EI is insurance. As soon as you are part of the scheme you are entitled to insurance, regardless if you have contributed for 1 day or 40 years. (OK, not quite 1 day because of the minimium period) Conversely, if you are not legimately unemplolyed, you are not entitled to one penny, regardless if you have contributed for 40 years.

I've got a silly question, i've been employed in the military for some 26 years now, UI is regularly deducted of my pay check as with everyones,.however at a retirement seminar we were told that we can not collect UI as we would be recieving a pension. The only way we could effectivly collect UI is to get employed again and work for the required time...then and only then could we collect it,and only at the rate of our 2 and job.

So for some it's not an insurance plan but just another tax.

Army Guy, yes I agree. For some it is not even insurance just overhead. That is why I would have favoured making EI participation voluntary, so for those who neither need, or want it, they can save their contribution.

If the system were voluntary, only the "high risk" individuals would participate, and by necessitity the contribution rate would go up. But so what, that's the nature of insurance.

[Army Guy]

Renegade:

Army Guy, yes I agree. For some it is not even insurance just overhead. That is why I would have favoured making EI participation voluntary, so for those who neither need, or want it, they can save their contribution.

If the system were voluntary, only the "high risk" individuals would participate, and by necessitity the contribution rate would go up. But so what, that's the nature of insurance

Or perhaps modify the existing service, make it available to all, and base the pay outs on what you have contributed into it. and if you never collect it by the time you retire it should be added onto your CPP somehow as a bonus of some sort.

[Renegade]

Or perhaps modify the existing service, make it available to all, and base the pay outs on what you have contributed into it. and if you never collect it by the time you retire it should be added onto your CPP somehow as a bonus of some sort.

Well that would change the nature of the program into exactly what CPP is. Why would you have two programs to do the same thing?

Consider EI somewhat like home insurance. If you don't claim for 40 years, do you think you have justification to go to the company and claim that since you didn't claim, the company owes you some of your premium back?

In my view, the premiums should reflect your risk of being unemployed. So if you were in the Army, and the risk was low, the premium should reflect that.

[Army Guy]

Renegade:

Well that would change the nature of the program into exactly what CPP is. Why would you have two programs to do the same thing?

The reason i tied it into the CPP was after you retire "hang up the gloves for good", you no longer have a requirement for UI , i may be wrong. As for the bonus part it could act as an incentive for some not to collect UI and pad the CPP which is not all that good.

Consider EI somewhat like home insurance. If you don't claim for 40 years, do you think you have justification to go to the company and claim that since you didn't claim, the company owes you some of your premium back?

I'm not an insurance expert, but i know some life insurance companys offer return of contribution after a certin period of time or allow you to borrow again'st it's equity. Besides this is not a company but our government, which has used that monies for 40 years to invest in what ever,other programs, a source of revenue etc....Perhaps if we forced them to invest that monies into revenue generating Canadian sources ,it would serve to pay those that require UI, perhaps even generate some funds, and investment back into our country maybe into job creation ventures. like new hyways etc etc. Just a thought.

I'm sure after even 20 years of contributing without collecting UI there must be some kind of bonus that the government could dish out. Or is the program in the red like everything else?

[Renegade]

The reason i tied it into the CPP was after you retire "hang up the gloves for good", you no longer have a requirement for UI , i may be wrong. As for the bonus part it could act as an incentive for some not to collect UI and pad the CPP which is not all that good.

If I remember correctly, there was a time when you no longer participated in UI once you were over 65 and retired. Court challenges deemed that age discrimmination, and it is no longer possible to determine for insurance purposes when you "hang up the gloves for good". A voluntary system would address this issue.

If CPP is not that good, it is because it is not intended to be the sole means of retirement income. That's what RRSPs are for, to supplement CPP.

I'm not an insurance expert, but i know some life insurance companys offer return of contribution after a certin period of time or allow you to borrow again'st it's equity.

What you are referring to is "whole life insurance". In effect the amount you pay is both a premium and and extra "contribution". The premium covers your insurance and the extra contribution is like a savings plan. So what you get refunded or borrow aginst is what you've saved (with interest of course).

Unfortunately UI isn't funded that way. There isn't any "extra" which is directed toward savings. So, unless your suggesting that UI contributions be increased in order to provide this, it is not part of the UI system.

Besides this is not a company but our government, which has used that monies for 40 years to invest in what ever,other programs, a source of revenue etc....Perhaps if we forced them to invest that monies into revenue generating Canadian sources ,it would serve to pay those that require UI, perhaps even generate some funds, and investment back into our country maybe into job creation ventures. like new hyways etc etc. Just a thought.

I'm sure after even 20 years of contributing without collecting UI there must be some kind of bonus that the government could dish out. Or is the program in the red like everything else?

Well EI is supposed to be operated as a separate fund which generally pays out what it collects in premiums. There were years that EI was in the red and needed to get additional funding from general revenues. Then the government tightened the eligiblity rules and trimmed the payout. Since then the program is in the black and generating surpluses. So I agree with you in the sense, I think the surplus should be returned to the contributors, but only because I think they have overpaid. Not because they haven't collected.

The "no-claims" bonus is an interesting idea. Some insurance plans include a discount on premiums if no claim is made for a number of years. A similar idea might apply here.

[Spike22]

What the ? The problem isn't that there aren't enough jobs it is that the jobs that are out there are the shits.

I know of one person who was recently laid off. He is an immigrant from Germany 40 years ago and is a master tool and die maker/machinist in the Toronto region, he is 60+.

With the downturn of the north american auto industry there are no machines being manufactured for automotive production, the sector in which this person worked. In fact several large machine shops are/have been closed, under bankruptcy protection etc. Any positions now available are $16 an hour entry positions and they are being filled by the Tamils, East Indians and Pakistanis who often do not have their papers, do lousy work requiring costly re-work resulting in future lost contracts due to poor workmanship OR this work has been outsourced overseas to some scummy third world nation. This has the CEO's, accountants and investors pissing themselves with glee that they are doing such a fantastic f'ing job but at what expense to this country and the workers they don't give a crap about. Hell Sobey's in Toronto posted a help wanted ad for their warehouse at $15.50 and hour for unskilled labour so why should anyone stay in school for 4 years if you get paid the same as a general labourer?

Sure the left coasters (BC and Alberta) where everything is zippity doo fantastic can say move out here but do you want another million people out there? The country is already slanted to the left.

Some folks don't want to move or can't like some folks suggest. This is a very simplistsic response to the easts woes. I have lived all over the country and I would say the best places to live have been in the maritimes. Why the hell would people want to give that up friends and people that really care about you to live in TO, Cowtown, the big Zero or Granola Country.

Is mass homelessness the real issue being caused by a change in ecomomic direction, what will happen next and how do we protect ourselves from obsolescence.???