Should CPP start at 67?

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure kid.

FIFY.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

I'm sorry i'm such an emotional cripple and have to pretend other people say things because i can't argue with what they say. (snif!!) 

Sure kid  

[Barquentine]

On 9/30/2025 at 4:05 PM, CdnFox said:

It's not your money to claim.

CPP is. You pay into it for 40 years or so. But it's an insurance program that hss to be balanced. That's why I support raising the age to 67 and continuing immigration at the highest levels feasible.

[Barquentine]

On 10/1/2025 at 8:52 PM, CdnFox said:

The rich prefer a happy healthy population with lots of disposable income

The rich prefer a happy healthy population with just enough disposable income to maintain the status quo.

And have you ever met a rich person who didn't want more. The richest people I've met have invariably been the greediest people I've met.

[Barquentine]

On 10/1/2025 at 9:23 PM, herbie said:

YA know they could end CPP/OAS, EI and welfare all at once with a Guaranteed Income

I like it as an idea, not so sure how it would work in practice. But if AI and mechanization replace too many jobs it will become a neccessity.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

CPP is. You pay into it for 40 years or so. But it's an insurance program that hss to be balanced. That's why I support raising the age to 67 and continuing immigration at the highest levels feasible.

Yes and no. CPP is a fun but it is frequently topped up or supplemented by government money as well and isn't intended to be a $1 in $1 out kind of system. It's better than OAS in that respect but it's not actually your money. 

In some respects it's kind of like an insurance program so that's not entirely wrong but it's not actually insurance. Insurance protects you against events that may not happen but could be devastating if they do. Unless you die prematurely there is a 100% chance you will get old, no 'maybe' about it   

What you're describing with immigration is more of a ponzi or pyramid scheme. Someone has to lose out.  immigrants do not earn as much money as natural canadians, so you've got people who will one day get the same benefit but won't have made the same contributions to our system.  That's a losing game. 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

I like it as an idea, not so sure how it would work in practice.

Badly.  

In essence we saw a taste of that with CERB during covid.  And while that was necessary and unavoidable there was much we learned about just giving people money. even if it's just barely enough to get by. And none of it was good, and the impact on our expenses was unsustainable even if we'd have been bringing in more normal revenues. 

"giving money" away is NEVER the solution, it is an economy destroyer and creates strong inflationary pressures. 

RRSP's are good examples of a vehicle that works and doesn't' hurt anythnig but is sort of like the gov't participating (they "chip in" the taxes), and you could do something like making a certain level of rrsp 'manditory' so to speak, or create a vehicle like that. Which is not far off what cpp is supposed to be. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

The rich prefer a happy healthy population with just enough disposable income to maintain the status quo.

 

No, they want the population to have as much disposable income as possible.  The only ones who don't are those who become liberal in their wealth (happens with shocking frequency for various reasons) and they're not exactly 'against' the average person either. 

The more money the average person has, the more easy it is to provide them with something that they will be willing to hand it over for. Rich people don't just magically stay 'rich' by and large, they invest their money and need other people to spend their money on those investments.

stability and strong economy and middle class is precisely what they want. 

[LinkSoul60]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

CPP is. You pay into it for 40 years or so. But it's an insurance program that hss to be balanced. That's why I support raising the age to 67 and continuing immigration at the highest levels feasible.

I left the workforce before CPP2 was introduced but that is intended to provide that balance of higher retirement pensions for those paying into it as costs continue to escalate.  Can't find any recent comments but in 2022 CPP Investments said the program was financially sustainable for the next 75 years.  I'm on the fence with the age parameters for CPP and only because it's your money, not government subsidized. I can see a scenario where the median age of 65 is not touched.

Where I do see the larger social benefit challenge is with OAS. That is wholly funded through government tax revenue and as we get older needs to be dealt with and aligned to our longevity.  That I fully support increasing the age to 67.

[herbie]

6 hours ago, Barquentine said:

I like it as an idea, not so sure how it would work in practice. But if AI and mechanization replace too many jobs it will become a neccessity.

Not before they create yet another agency, fully staffed, to administer benefits for those specific people. 

[August1991]

On 9/27/2025 at 9:48 AM, Barquentine said:

People are living longer healthier lives. When the CPP started, people collected it for much shorter periods.

 

Stupidest forum title ever. 

Maybe I have responded before

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Stupidest forum title ever. 

Maybe I have responded before

YOU don't get to say that     

[August1991]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

YOU don't get to say that     

We all contribute to the CPP.

-Women live longer than men.

-The CPP means we don't consume - what happens to this effort?

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, August1991 said:

We all contribute to the CPP.

-Women live longer than men.

-The CPP means we don't consume - what happens to this effort?

I agree, and as I know it above the amount of people put in and the amount of people take out are not the same and it is often topped up by the government or people get less than they deserve if we were looking at straight payment for amount contributed. 

Like every social program it requires some people lose in order for some to gain. That's why generally speaking I feel social programs should be kept to a minimum.

But that really doesn't address the issue of when it should start. Women are going to live longer whether it starts at 65, 75, or 25. Some people will pay into it all they're working life and then get run over by a truck on retirement day. We call that retirony . So they put in and they will never get it and neither will their children or anyone else.

But many argue it is still a necessary system because so many people struggle with actually saving money themselves. And even those who do may fall on hard economic times and have their assets seized due to insolvency, at least their CPP would be protected

So what's your point?

[August1991]

The CPP and Caisse force people to put aside their effort for the future.

The Caisse is uh "wisely" doing this in Quebec with the REM.

====

Who should decide our future?

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, August1991 said:

The CPP and Caisse force people to put aside their effort for the future.

The Caisse is uh "wisely" doing this in Quebec with the REM.

====

Who should decide our future?

We already did. We voted for these guys. That's when we got to choose our future. Sorry if you have buyer's remorse  

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, herbie said:

Not before they create yet another agency, fully staffed, to administer benefits for those specific people. 

Can't AI do it?

[Barquentine]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, they want the population to have as much disposable income as possible

Well, let's look at the US:

• 20 States:Including Texas, Florida, and North Carolina, still operate on the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. 

That's the rich and powerful wanting "the population to have as much disposable income as possible"?

12 hours ago, August1991 said:

Stupidest forum title ever.

Then why are you replying, genius?

[Barquentine]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Like every social program it requires some people lose in order for some to gain. That's why generally speaking I feel social programs should be kept to a minimum.

Then you must oppose home, auto and life insurance.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Well, let's look at the US:

• 20 States:Including Texas, Florida, and North Carolina, still operate on the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. 

That's the rich and powerful wanting "the population to have as much disposable income as possible"?

 

Yes, it is.  However what they want is the minimum wage earners to continue to improve their skills and value and move on to do jobs that are WORTH more money.  YOU want to give them FREE money for work that doesn't have value. 

Look at microsoft  Bill gates made so  many people wealthy the term 'microsoft millionare" actually became a common term. But - they earned it.  He didn't want his people to be poor, he didn't try to keep all the money for himself, but he didn't give any away based on 'muh feels'. 

It's worth remembering that most wealthy people Come from low or middle class families. The wealthy do nothing to inhibit these people from growing and in fact it's quite common for them to mention them and improve their chances of success as they go.

Refusing to give people things they didn't earn isn't repression

[herbie]

Amazing how many people can look at 125 years of history and conclude Kowtowing to the wealthiest few best benefits themselves. So brainwashed by Puritan Work Ethic, they'll decide which work is worthy and which isn't, yet always that  their own is at the top.

Like the recent push to teach "coding*" in schools even as business contracts it all out to India coders making $5 a day.

*without having a clue what it even is, let alone what KIND of code.

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Amazing how many people can look at 125 years of history and conclude Kowtowing to the wealthiest few best benefits themselves..

 

Amazing how many people can look at 125 years of history and not realize that you don't get jobs from poor people and that the wealthiest can't get wealthy without making others wealthy.  And it further boggles the mind that they don't puzzle out that driving the wealthy away makes everyone who's left poorer 

[herbie]

No what's amazing is the number of slow minded people who think it's up to someone else to give them a job.

And think others, like themselves, should belittle themselves for as little recompense as possible.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

No what's amazing is the number of slow minded people who think it's up to someone else to give them a job.

 

Well that's true but kind of in contrast to your other post   Jobs must be earned. You're not entitled, and the pay will be commensurate to the skill the job requires or the value it creates. 

But before you can earn a job there has to be opportunity. Now you don't necessarily have to wait for someone else to provide opportunity, you CAN start your own business and chase that opportunit. But for most people they prefer someone else to provide the chance to work, and that requires wealth. 

3 hours ago, herbie said:

And think others, like themselves, should belittle themselves for as little recompense as possible.

Oh i'd say the problem is that too many think they should benefit MORE than their fair share.  Like postal workers who think that putting paper in a box and walking to the next box deserves a pension. 

Or others who let someone else take all the risk, do all the work to build a business, put forward all the assets, use all the skill and then think they deserve all that person's profit because "what are they doing to deserve it"

Fact is generally the market guarantees people are paid what they're worth. Otherwise people don't work for that person.  That's why henry ford looked at his unskilled workforce who sat their all day doing exactly the same motion all day and said "double their pay, it's a special skill to do that and not get bored and screw up and we need to keep those people".

 Business isn't stupid.  Unions tend to be but business isn't. 

[Barquentine]

On 10/4/2025 at 2:35 PM, CdnFox said:

Yes, it is.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa.. Oh, you're always good for a laugh.

 

On 10/4/2025 at 2:35 PM, CdnFox said:

microsoft millionare

What percent of the working population, exactly?