Gay partners now have rights but what about other non-sexual partnersh

[quinton]

As of now married and common-law gay partners can pass on CPP Survivor Benefits if one of them dies to their partner.

It is not so clear that other types of dependent relationships can get the same CPP Survivor Benefits:

Examples:

-two brothers living together on the family farm

-a daughter who is living with and providing care for her ailing mother

-two friends living together in a dependent relationship .

In fact, these people would have to say that they are in a conjugal common-law partnership, and hope that the government would use a compatible definition of conjugal.

Obviously the above partners are not having sex, but they are dependent.

Shouldn't they have rights to?

Is the government trying to reward people for having sex, or are they trying to set up a system to support those who have just suffered the loss of a dependent partner that they were living with at the time of death?

[Michael Hardner]

Shouldn't they have rights to?

What rights ? They shouldn't have CPP survivor benefits, though.

Is the government trying to reward people for having sex, or are they trying to set up a system to support those who have just suffered the loss of a dependent partner that they were living with at the time of death?

The latter. Awkwardly, having sex or living-in-sin or whatever is a test to determine the nature of the relationship.

The system was set up so that old people wouldn't starve (poverty among the elderly used to be a major problem but isn't so much today) but perhaps should be replaced with a single-user benefit system.

[quinton]

Michael Hardner you just said that the system is set up to support dependent people who were living together at the time that the CPP pensioner died.

So why do you think that a father and son, two sisters, two friends, etc living together in a dependent relationship wouldn't be worthy of CPP Survivor Benefits as common-law gays or heterosexual couples are?

[Michael Hardner]

Michael Hardner you just said that the system is set up to support dependent people who were living together at the time that the CPP pensioner died.

To take care of dependent spouses, ie. old widows.

So why do you think that a father and son, two sisters, two friends, etc living together in a dependent relationship wouldn't be worthy of CPP Survivor Benefits as common-law gays or heterosexual couples are?

Because they don't need it, by and large and that's not the intent of survivor benefits.

As I said, survivor benefits should probably be eliminated and each person should be considered an individual. The widows are in better shape now. ( Please hold your jokes on this one. )

[quinton]

Michael Hardner, you are making no sense.

You said "Because they don't need it" ??????

Please explain this.

You think that a surviving dependent partner like a brother, son, sister, friend, aunt, etc does not need support when the partner they depend on dies?

And you do think a "widow" does?

I'd like to hear your rationale for that!

BTW the present system allows a husband, wife, or gay partner who is in a common-law relationship to collect the pension benefits of his/her deceased partner until he/she is 60.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael Hardner, you are making no sense.

You said "Because they don't need it" ??????

Please explain this.

You think that a surviving dependent partner like a brother, son, sister, friend, aunt, etc does not need support when the partner they depend on dies?

No, I don't. CPP isn't welfare - it's supposed to be a pension, albeit one that's skewed more towards providing a social benefit.

And you do think a "widow" does?

I don't think she does any more.

I'd like to hear your rationale for that!

BTW the present system allows a husband, wife, or gay partner who is in a common-law relationship to collect the pension benefits of his/her deceased partner until he/she is 60.

Exactly. It was probably designed for stay-at-home mothers. Unfortunately, or fortunately, society doesn't feel that a 50-year-old woman can't support herself with her husband gone anymore.

Time for a revamp.

[quinton]

A widow is not necessarily a she!

You seem to have a narrow mind.

[Michael Hardner]

A widow is not necessarily a she!

You seem to have a narrow mind.

A widow is a she, while a widower is a he.

The programme was set up (under Deif I think) because of the problem of poverty among older people as I said. Poor war widows are a powerful emotional agent in politics.

And as I have said, the system needs to be modernized towards todays values.

I wouldn't say I have a narrow mind. You seem to want to argue with me even though it doesn't sound like we disagree much.

Do you think same-sex couples should get CPP benefits ?

[geoffrey]

This is the problem created by the gay rights bill that legalised SSM.

The government should have got right out of the marriage game that they never should have been in.

Benefits should have been awards to all people living together for more than 'x' days. Ignore the ideals of marriage or garriage or whatever you want to call it.

Let people decide whatever they want to call themselves.

That would have been equality, but I hardly believe that equality was the goal. There was nothing more than vote buying involved.

[Michael Hardner]

This is the problem created by the gay rights bill that legalised SSM.

It might also be that society has changed. As one of the first social programs in Canada, CPP is showing its age.

[geoffrey]

This is the problem created by the gay rights bill that legalised SSM.

It might also be that society has changed. As one of the first social programs in Canada, CPP is showing its age.

I don't like CPP either, I was just trying to stay more on the topic of gay rights trumping those of other alternative living arrangements.

[quinton]

Michael, a husband can be a widow too if his wife dies.

geoffery, I agree that this benefit should be extended to any pair of humans living together for 'x' days regardless of what their relationship is.

[quinton]

Yes I think that gays should be able to get CPP Survivor Benefits but only if other partners like a father and son, a brother and sister, two friends, etc who live together can also be eligible for those same benefits.

geoffrey, I agree that gay rights are trumping the rights of non-sexual partners.

Prior to that, heterosexual rights were trumping human rights.

If the CPP Survivor Benefits program exists at all, it must be extended to any dependent partners that cohabit together.

Why should the government only award these benefits to partners that are having sex?

I don't know what would happen if a partnership claimed common-law status and told the government that they were virgins... maybe the government would tell them that they couldn't have CPP Survivor Benefits.

Or what would happen if two family members lied to the government that they were having sex so that they could have CPP Survivor Benefits?

Ultimately, Trudeau said it best when he stated that the government does not belong in the bedrooms of society.

[Renegade]

Personally I think CPP Survivor benefits should be extended to whomever you choose whether a dependant on not. Afterall, we all pay the same into CPP, why should only those with spouses get survivor benefits.

An alternative would be to have a higher payout to those who don't name a survivor, and if a survivor is named, the benefit amount should depend upon the age of the survivor.

Sorry for the repost. There seem to be two threads on this. Not sure why.

[quinton]

Yes Renegade, I reposted it because in this thread the topic got truncated, and it would not let me edit the topic.

Thanks again for sharing your point of view, which I agree with by the way.

[August1991]

Yes I think that gays should be able to get CPP Survivor Benefits but only if other partners like a father and son, a brother and sister, two friends, etc who live together can also be eligible for those same benefits.

So, I marry my son's boyfriend and the boyfriend's father marries my son. When the older spouses die, the younger widower (widowee?) gets the pension.

Hey, let's cut out the middlewoman. I'll just marry my daughter and she'll become the widow. Or how about designated widows? My neighbour's son carries out the garbage - I'll name him as beneficiary.

If we could pass on survivor benefits like this into eternity, eventually we'd all be rich!

----

At any given moment, the world has only so much stuff available. And at any given moment, different people have different claims on this stuff.

Shifting around the claims on the stuff available won't usually change anything in who gets how much stuff (it's usually a wash). Once the dust settles, no one is richer. Except. Shifting claims around may mean there may be less stuff available. Musical chairs, with a chair missing when the music stops.

IOW, if we change CPP survivor benefit rules we'd only be changing paper claims on stuff available. Governments do that all the time. There'll be nothing more available but how many chairs will be missing when the music stops?

This is a non-issue - except in the broader scheme of what governments do in general.

[quinton]

A non-issue?!

Awarding benefits to dependent pairs of people that live together only if they have sex and discriminating against those who do not have sex is not an issue?

August1991, I disagree.

[August1991]

A non-issue?!

Awarding benefits to dependent pairs of people that live together only if they have sex and discriminating against those who do not have sex is not an issue?

August1991, I disagree.

Quinton, if it wanted, the government could change the rules and allow you to designate anyone you wanted as a survivor entitled to benefits - regardless of sleeping arrangements. In turn, I guess, that person could then designate anyone they wanted as a survivor. And so on.

We've almost got that now. Nothing stops a 80 year old man marrying a 20 year old woman (or man) as part of a deal to extend survivor benefits. For the younger spouse, that would be a stipend for life.

Canada Pension Plan Survivor Benefits

If the survivor is under 45, then the calculation is 37.5 per cent of the contributor's retirement pension...

To get that, there would have to be a dependent child - possibly adopted. (Link)

We are admittedly not talking about a fortune, but the pension is payable anywhere in the world.

----

My point was that governments indiscriminately (or discriminately) shift claims on stuff between people now. For example, in the case above, there must be a dependent child, or a CPP-defined disability. One bureaucrat defines you as disabled but another bureaucrat defines the person behind you in the line as able-bodied. Two years later, after appeals, the decision might get reversed... but maybe not.

Government bureaucrats make decisions like this everyday.

In the grand scheme of things, the idea of granting survivor benefits to a specific group is a non-issue except within the context of all the other ways governments arbitrarily shift claims between people.

Admittedly, insurance companies and private pensions make decisions like this too. But they must answer to shareholders and potential customers through premiums. If premiums are too high, a customer can go elsewhere. It is also unlikely that a private pension will change the rules after you sign the contract.

None of this applies to the CPP because it ultimately relies on taxpayers. Governments have the right to shift claims on real stuff any way they want.

[Renegade]

if it wanted, the government could change the rules and allow you to designate anyone you wanted as a survivor entitled to benefits - regardless of sleeping arrangements. In turn, I guess, that person could then designate anyone they wanted as a survivor. And so on.

We've almost got that now. Nothing stops a 80 year old man marrying a 20 year old woman (or man) as part of a deal to extend survivor benefits. For the younger spouse, that would be a stipend for life.

In my view the payouts should be modeled the same as insurance annunity payouts. You would get to choose whether the payout was for you alone, or until joint death. Naturally if you choose joint, the payout is lower and depends upon your age and that of the joint party. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement that the joint party be a spouse or dependant.

None of this applies to the CPP because it ultimately relies on taxpayers. Governments have the right to shift claims on real stuff any way they want.

I don't beleive this is true. CPP is not funded by taxes but by CPP contributions. (Admittedly it is the many of the same people as those paying taxes)

[geoffrey]

Or the government shouldn't be involved in investing for retirement and solve the whole issue?

[August1991]

None of this applies to the CPP because it ultimately relies on taxpayers. Governments have the right to shift claims on real stuff any way they want.

I don't beleive this is true. CPP is not funded by taxes but by CPP contributions. (Admittedly it is the many of the same people as those paying taxes)

I suppose you believe that CPP contributions are not a tax either.

Since, according to you, the CPP is not funded by "taxes" but rather by "contributions", I suggest you stop making the "contributions" and see what happens.

[Naci Sey]

Geoffrey: The government should have got right out of the marriage game that they never should have been in.

This is one of the best responses I've heard on the whole marriage issue. Does anyway know the history on when and why government got into the marriage business in the first place? I'm wondering if it was precisely because they had linked survivor and other benefits to wedded couples. Or may it have been an equality issue, viz non-religious having no other recourse?

I'm not posing these as rhetorical questions. I know nothing about the history of this issue and would appreciate hearing from those who do.

Geoffrey: Benefits should have been awards to all people living together for more than 'x' days. Ignore the ideals of marriage or garriage or whatever you want to call it.

That seems the most sensible and fairest solution.

[scribblet]

Geoffrey: The government should have got right out of the marriage game that they never should have been in.

This is one of the best responses I've heard on the whole marriage issue. Does anyway know the history on when and why government got into the marriage business in the first place? I'm wondering if it was precisely because they had linked survivor and other benefits to wedded couples. Or may it have been an equality issue, viz non-religious having no other recourse?

I'm not posing these as rhetorical questions. I know nothing about the history of this issue and would appreciate hearing from those who do.

Geoffrey: Benefits should have been awards to all people living together for more than 'x' days. Ignore the ideals of marriage or garriage or whatever you want to call it.

That seems the most sensible and fairest solution.

I don't have a link, but I heard an excellent speaker on this a few years ago. Gov't originally got into the marriage business to protect women and children who were extremely vulnerable. It offered some protection from violence and financial issues (not a h..l of a lot)

And of course, there's Roman Law (familia) which we base a lot of institutions on.

[Biblio Bibuli]

As of now .........

As of now, only when you share an apartment with a member of the opposite sex can you be denied the perks that come with your low pension. They just declare you "common-law" whether you want it or not, and if the roomie you share the apartment with has a good pension, your perks will be taken away. And if you both are the poor of the earth with very low pensions that must be suppplemented, supplelments will be lowered.

That ALSO isn't fair.

[Renegade]

None of this applies to the CPP because it ultimately relies on taxpayers. Governments have the right to shift claims on real stuff any way they want.

I don't beleive this is true. CPP is not funded by taxes but by CPP contributions. (Admittedly it is the many of the same people as those paying taxes)

I suppose you believe that CPP contributions are not a tax either.

Since, according to you, the CPP is not funded by "taxes" but rather by "contributions", I suggest you stop making the "contributions" and see what happens.

I guess it really depends on what you want to call a "tax". I agree that the CPP contributions are mandatory. If you define a tax as any payment to the government with is not voluntary, then I agree it is a tax. In my mind, a tax is a non-voluntary payment which is directed toward general revenues. But at this point we are simply disputing nomenclature.