quinton Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 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? Should rights such as CPP Survivor Benefits or income tax deductions for a dependent be extended to partners that live together in non-sexual relationships who are dependent and sometimes related like family members? Quote
southerncomfort Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 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? Should rights such as CPP Survivor Benefits or income tax deductions for a dependent be extended to partners that live together in non-sexual relationships who are dependent and sometimes related like family members? In a nutshell no but I can see it coming, and whos gonna pay for all of this. Oh right, you and me. Whats in your wallet!! Quote
quinton Posted April 13, 2006 Author Report Posted April 13, 2006 Estimate is that it would only cost $30 million annually to extend this benefit to non-sexual dependent cohabiting partners Quote
Hicksey Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 Estimate is that it would only cost $30 million annually to extend this benefit to non-sexual dependent cohabiting partners So if I move in with my best friend to save money on bills, and he dies, I would be eligible for survivor's benefits? ?And if I live for another 35 years I get the benefit for that period ? If so, I think that's extending it too far. I'd rather see the money go to the fund for people that are disabled in crimes so that people so injured can get what they need instead. I see that as a higher priority. But if I were to support it at all it would be only for the costs of burial provided they were not available from the deceased estate. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Renegade Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 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? Should rights such as CPP Survivor Benefits or income tax deductions for a dependent be extended to partners that live together in non-sexual relationships who are dependent and sometimes related like family members? 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. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
Renegade Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 I'd rather see the money go to the fund for people that are disabled in crimes so that people so injured can get what they need instead. I see that as a higher priority. CPP funds are segregated so that the funds collected are only used to pay out CPP benefits. They don't get to be used as a slush fund to pay for other benefits. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
quinton Posted April 13, 2006 Author Report Posted April 13, 2006 Renegade, you have a sensible point of view. I believe fairness, reasonableness and equality should always be the goal. Quote
August1991 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 Guinton, you started a thread on this topic already. I posted my opinion there. I have reported this to the moderator. Quote
quinton Posted April 14, 2006 Author Report Posted April 14, 2006 August1991: Yeah, but the topic got truncated, so I had to start over since I couldn't edit the topic to make it fit. This board lets me edit post, but not topic, and there's no way of knowing if your topic title is too long until you post it and see whether or not it gets truncated. Perhaps I should have previewed the post. Oh well, there's two topics on the same thing now. Quote
Hicksey Posted April 14, 2006 Report Posted April 14, 2006 I'd rather see the money go to the fund for people that are disabled in crimes so that people so injured can get what they need instead. I see that as a higher priority. CPP funds are segregated so that the funds collected are only used to pay out CPP benefits. They don't get to be used as a slush fund to pay for other benefits. I know that. I was trying to say that if we're to give more handouts it should go to people who are really underserviced and who really need and deserve it. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Renegade Posted April 14, 2006 Report Posted April 14, 2006 I was trying to say that if we're to give more handouts it should go to people who are really underserviced and who really need and deserve it. OK, but I would not consider returning people their own money collected through their contributions handouts. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
Hicksey Posted April 14, 2006 Report Posted April 14, 2006 I was trying to say that if we're to give more handouts it should go to people who are really underserviced and who really need and deserve it. OK, but I would not consider returning people their own money collected through their contributions handouts. That's right, its the government pilfering more than it needs from us, filtering it through their pork barrel and giving a fool's share of it back to us. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Renegade Posted April 14, 2006 Report Posted April 14, 2006 That's right, its the government pilfering more than it needs from us, filtering it through their pork barrel and giving a fool's share of it back to us. Like I said, except for the fools who don't bother saving for retirement, we'ed be better off if the system was collapsed and our contributions returned to us with interest. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.