While I criticized the Wynn government for her duplicity on this (she said that we can't afford to lay off excess public sector workers because the economy is fragile, then how can the economy afford a second PP?), you make a good point here, which is in keeping with my post #40.
Is the proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan a good idea?
- Thread starter probyn
- Start date
While I criticized the Wynn government for her duplicity on this (she said that we can't afford to lay off excess public sector workers because the economy is fragile, then how can the economy afford a second PP?), you make a good point here, which is in keeping with my post #40.
There is no certainty of returns. You are pretty much forced to bet your money in stock market managed by some government bureaucrats . We've been lucky so far with steady uptrending market since WWII, but how long can it last?
Retirement savings and pensions need an overhaul. There are a few things that need to be done:
1. Yes, forcing people to contribute to a retirement plan. ALL employees should be forced to participate in a pension plan of some sort. ALL.
2. Forbid employers from running their own pension plan, so that we don't have any more pensions going bust because the company went under, a'la the auto companies
People should be allowed to choose what pension they contribute to, though. Let financial firms set up competing pension funds, provided they meet certain financial soundness constraints, and let people choose which approved fund their earnings are contributed to. Making it a private pension fund operated neither by the employer nor by the government should put it beyond reach of both greedy politicians and greedy or reckless CEOs.
I would support scrapping the whole RRSP/TFSA system and forcing everyone to push 15% of their pre-tax income into a mandatory pension plan.
1. Yes, forcing people to contribute to a retirement plan. ALL employees should be forced to participate in a pension plan of some sort. ALL.
2. Forbid employers from running their own pension plan, so that we don't have any more pensions going bust because the company went under, a'la the auto companies
People should be allowed to choose what pension they contribute to, though. Let financial firms set up competing pension funds, provided they meet certain financial soundness constraints, and let people choose which approved fund their earnings are contributed to. Making it a private pension fund operated neither by the employer nor by the government should put it beyond reach of both greedy politicians and greedy or reckless CEOs.
I would support scrapping the whole RRSP/TFSA system and forcing everyone to push 15% of their pre-tax income into a mandatory pension plan.
Ontario isn't too far away, what happens when governments go under? Think Detroit...
Keep the government completely out of the pension market except for creating rules & enforcing rules to protect the future pensioner. Like CPP, Wynn's new Ontario plan will be simply a tax that may or may not be returned to the taxpayer at a later date. My wife died before her 65th birthday. Her company pension plan paid her "death benefit" (her contributions plus the employer's contributions plus interest) into my RRSP. The bank transferred her "RRSP" into my RRSP. Both of these I would call a pension plan because she owned the money & it was not confiscated upon her death. CPP was different though. After 30 years of contributions CPP sent me a $2500 cheque to cover a death benefit & upped my CPP payment by 96 cents per month to cover a spousal benefit. The rest of the 30 years worth of contributions made by my wife & her employers were confiscated by the government - hence the government not my wife "owned" the contributions, hence CPP is a TAX not a pension plan. Wynn's TAX will be the same, once contributions are in the government's hands it belongs to them not the future pensioner.
If Wynn is really interested in ensuring people have pensions and not simply trying to create a new revenue tool for her government she should be working with the Federal Government on their proposal to set up third party pension plans that anyone could join. In fact the Federal proposal should be the thing that is mandatory. If properly regulated the money in them would at least belong to the contributor, not the government
If Wynn is really interested in ensuring people have pensions and not simply trying to create a new revenue tool for her government she should be working with the Federal Government on their proposal to set up third party pension plans that anyone could join. In fact the Federal proposal should be the thing that is mandatory. If properly regulated the money in them would at least belong to the contributor, not the government
Ultimately, I agree with this. But we're so far off that this is one of the necessary first steps. Ultimately it would be great to have a fully portable, NATIONAL pension plan that carried through from employer to employer. No more private/public plans, just one big super plan like the Netherlands. But that's a long journey and we all see the difficulty we're having just in Ontario with getting others on board.
Whether its the Libs or the Cons who do this, I don't care. Preferably they'd all be on the same page. But SOMEBODY has to do SOMETHING and for that I give the Libs props. The status quo just isn't working.
Tell that to the small business man who can barely keep his head above water, this is something that will kill many small businesses or cause them to lay off workers to cover the cost.
That's why the devil is in the details. We'll see if it impacts small businesses.
Regardless, this same excuse is used by small business when they don't want the minimum wage to be raised. Sometimes it's just a cost of doing business.
Our business is very successful but this new pp has helped us decide when to sell and/or retire. My co-owners and myself are in agreement, we are not paying this for our employees or ourselves. Most likely we will sell to a US company prior to the implementation. We will be eliminating some very good jobs in Canada. Another tax plus income tax up to 50% means it's time to quit feeding the system.
I've heard this same kind of thing from a few small business owners (who employ most of the population),...about this latest Fiberals tax.
This along with raising the min wage,...which in the long run,...will acomplish NOTHING,...but futher reduce jobs in the private sector,...which finances ALL of the government services,...really bright moves,...by the "peoples party".
FAST
The principal behind insurance is to share risk, not guarantee you will get all your premiums back. In the case of an annuity, there are those who die young (and the deal looks like a ripoff) and those who live a long long life, getting more out of the income than they put in. The risk people are hedging against is living a long time in that circumstance.
Pensions, with income streams and death benefits, can be thought of as mixtures of annuities and life insurance. It doesn't make the premiums a tax.
Similarly, i can pay fire insurance all my life and never make a claim. Those premiums are not a tax.
Oh please, enough with the melodrama. You would have sold anyways. Wanna make an omelet, gotta break some eggs. Sorry but I'm not swayed. There will be lots of sob stories from businesses who will see their profits shrink. I'd rather see joe average have a decent pension than the tiny minority of business owners make a little more profit.
The CPP has defined benefits, for the beneficiary and spouse, and people should be receiving those benefits. I really don't understand the distinction that leads you to call the premiums a tax. The concept of a shared pool of risk still exists in pensions, including the CPP, which as i mention, can be thought of as a combination of an income stream (annuity) and death benefits (life insurance.) People who live longer will benefit more than those who die young, all else being equal, and that is the nature of sharing the risk.
