babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Pensions - Part 4
April 5, 2012 - 4:07pm
Irwin Cotler in the Huff Post today went after the government on OAS. Does anyone know what the Libs did with pensions while in government? For example, did the NDP propose changes to allocate monies for larger pensions which the Libs resisted, or did the Libs get criticizes for not raising pensions, significantly, etc? I would sure to like to know. At the very least, can anyone suggest where I could find info on this.
Frankly, anytime any Liberal starts harping about social policy, I always assume this is despite their having done the same thing in government or worse.
In 1985, Mulroney partially de-indexed the CPP. In the face of a massive revolt by seniors, he backtracked a week later.
In 1996, Paul Martin tried to base clawbacks of OAS/GIS on family rather than individual income. He too had to backtrack.
That's all I recall in terms of attempts to weaken retirement security. Unfortunately, I don't remember the NDP pushing for any improvement at all, until (to their credit) they piggybacked on the CLC's campaign to double CPP benefits a couple of years ago, and they've continued to campaign on that issue. But maybe someone else will remember the kind of scenario you're describing?
Hi Unionist, found a link http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/politics/story/2012/03/13/f-budget-2012-1995.html. It confirms the Libs considered it but I haven't found anything regarding what the NDP had proposed. I am still looking around though.
I guess it just proves what I have found is always the case with the Libs. They attack the Tories for doing something that quite often in the area of social policy and expenditures, they had considered. I just find it so rich. I mean the gap between rich and poor has increased by almost 300% under Lib and Tory govts, as has child poverty, while wages have remained stagnant, and it is harder to access social support programs like EI. It drives me crazy listening to the Libs trying to spout stuff and hoping no one will look deeply enough to find out the truth.
As I have said so many times, given the above, why would anyone calling themselves "progressive" vote Lib. I simply don't get it at all.
Hey, always very good to hear from you, even when you kick my butt
! Thanks again!
Meanwhile, across the pond:
France's Hollande to lower state pension age to 60
While south of the border a couple of electoral results (no, this is not about Scott Walker)
San Jose
http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_20790991/early-returns-san-jose-voters-approving-pension-reform
...and the article never mentions exactly what that substantial margin is.
Here it is:
http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_16443048
69.6% for the measure. Yeah, that's substantial.
San Diego
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jun/05/pension-reform-scores-big-voters/
What is it with these articles not having the election results in them? I assume they wrote them ahead of time, but couldn't even be bothered to put in the most recent counts.
I had to go here and scroll down:
http://www.utsandiego.com/election/results/
Only 66% in favor of the pension reform. Not quite as substantial a result as San Jose's.
Seems to me: a progressive proposal for pension reform ought to involve reducing the gap between the highest and lowest pension incomes, perhaps via adjustment of tax brackets for seniors, using additional tax collected from high pension incomes to supplement low pension incomes.
I don't expect cheers from the indexed pension crowd.
If I understand what you're suggesting, that would hit unionized workers the hardest (and public sector workers would be among the hardest hit of that group) but meanwhile it would do nothing for the vast majority of people that have no pensions.
Well, ABN, you may be correct to say so, but darned if I can see how. Perhaps I simply mis-spoke.
It is the retirement incomes of very high earners that would be hit the hardest--at least that was the intended import of my remark. Surely most unionized public sector workers are not amongst the top 10%, the top 1%, the top 0.1%, and the top 0.01%.
Further, if additional taxes collected on higher retirement incomes are used to supplement lower retirement incomes, surely that does something for the vast majority of (low income) people who have no pensions.
If not, what am I missing?
But if that is the earning bracket you mean we aren't talking about pensions, we are talking about personal investment portfolios. I don't think any people who have the power to do otherwise would trust their future to a pension in this day and age. Even the truly good ones are likely to get poached, watered down, or erased.
First the majority of Candians outside of the public service do not have defined benefit pensions. According to the Canadian Institute of Actuaries only 17% of private sector workers in Canada are covered by a defined benefit pension plan and something like 7% of workers have a defined contribution plan. In other words, the majority of Canadians won't have any retirement income in the traditional sense (i.e., they won't receive a monthly pension check but will instead be living off of their savings and whatever government pension(s) they may be eligible for).
And while there are definitely cases of senior executives with lavish pensions you'll also find a lot of them are in the same boat. Even if they've got a seven or eight digit bank balance they have no "retirement income" per se (and with interest rates at their current level they won't have much in the way of investment income either).
As an aside, given the level of funding of many (most?) pension plans it's distinctly possible that even those individuals with solid retirement incomes will get hammered if the sponsor/parent company goes under.
End result is that the people with "retirement incomes" will largely be those in that 17% with defined benefit pensions and that group will disproportionately consist of unionized workers and civil servants.
Well yeah, workers with half-decent incomes, benefits, and pensions of any sort whatsoever will and have always consisted disproportionately of unionized workers (which includes public service workers - they're not a class apart).
The real new phenomenon is the "disproportionate" assault against workers on all fronts - their ability to unionize without extraordinary obstruction, the attacks against free collective bargaining, the absence of consistent political allies for workers, the resultant decline in union density in various spheres, and the apparent impotence of the labour movement to mount a coordinated and effective resistance to these phenomena.
Without a powerful and determined workers' movement, there will be no pensions of any kind for anyone - just as not a single existing minimum labour standard or public benefit plan would have come into being out of thin air and good wishes.
That's what I think, at least. So the responsibility for success, or failure, is ours alone.
Real, yes, but new?
197 repressive pieces of anti-labour legislations enacted across Canada in the last 30 years
Well, yes, that is what I'm talking about: retirement income from all sources, whether from OAS, CPP, private pensions, RRSPs, etc. The suggestion is simply to create additional tax brackets for the top 10%, the top 1%, the top 0.1%, and the top 0.01% retirement incomes. The taxes collected would be allocated to supplement the bottom retirement incomes (also from whatever sources) via refundable tax credits or something equivalent: a GAI for retired persons, if you will.
I understand why people with high-end retirement incomes would resist such a proposal, but I don't understand why anyone posting to rabble.ca would do so. I'm obviously missing something, but what?
Then you are really talking about INCOME from all source. It's not specifically a retirement issue. Though I can see how it might be hard to earmark that to benefit retirees.
And who's resisting? I think everyone here, including myself, is just asking for clarification. I don't think anyone has said fairer taxation is a bad idea.
So how does this apply to someone that's simply living off of their savings. No income, just a bank account?
Savings??? What's that?
That's what those of us without pensions will have to live off of when we retire.
Well, I'm talking about RETIREMENT ONLY income from all sources: OAS, CPP, RRSPs, private pensions, etc. So it is specifically a retirement issue.
Will it be hard to earmark to retirees? Seems to me that collecting the additional taxes involves revising the tax calculation schedule on the Ontario portion of the individual tax return. Distributing the taxes collected can be achieved using the method currently used to distribute the Ontario sales tax and property/rent tax credits.
"And who's resisting?" you ask. Good question. There has been resistance from some to the GAI proposals put forth by Red Tory Tea Girl. My suggestion, which amounts to a GAI for retirees only, may engender somewhat less resistance--I live in hope, eh?!
My intention is to introduce some fairness for low income retirees.
Seems to me that dealing with savings (from employment income, investment income, capital gains income, etc.) requires introducing fairness measures to the entire tax system, but perhaps not.
Do you have a suggestion?
Since people have already paid taxes on their savings, what's your suggestion?
Yes, savings accumulated outside of a tax shelter have already been taxed. However, it's obvious to me--to you, too?-- that the marginal tax rates for high-end incomes earned prior to retirement are too low. Red Tory Tea Girl promotes a GAI that could be funded by higher marginal tax rates on the highest incomes: top 10%, top 1%, top 0.1%, and top 0.01%.
If there were more equity in taxing incomes before retirement, there would be, as a result, more equity in incomes, including accumulated savings, after retirement. Don't you agree?!
But some who comment here have little enthusiasm for GAI and others feel that tinkering with tax rates has little to do with Closing the Gap between the highest and lowest incomes. Go figure!
Pension contributions are sheltered from tax until they are received as pension income during retirement.
MP Pension Hoard Hits $1 Billion
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2012/06/29/19935186.html
"The average Canadian Pension Plan payout this year is $534.10 a month compared to $5,970.00 an average MP who retired last year receives. For every $1 parliamentarians contributed to their plan last year, taxpayers gave $24.36, said Thomas. That works out to a compounded total of $4.5 million contributions compared with $110.7 million from taxpayers. 'It's highway robbery,' he said..."
yep.
That's an eye-opener for sure.
Is Sheila really the worse you could come up with? She's also notorious for being a member of the Liberal 'rat pack', whatever you may have thought of them, but she also brought in what I remember was the toughest environmental legislation we've ever had; as well as Young Canada Works. I worked in Manpower and Immigration Canada and remember these things as well as Opportunities For Youth, the Local Initiatives Program, and Katimavik - all Liberal programs. Yeah, all MPs and Senators get paid far too fucking much in their pensions, but I think there are other targets equally bad or worse than Sheila Copps.
Yeah, they're all bad, but my point is that Sheila is no worse than the rest. Do we have a problem with NDP MPs getting their salaries and pensions? You can begrudge Shiela all you want, but what about the NDP's Pat "loudmouth" Martin?