New Canada CPP a Joke

[Keebler Elf]

This is one of the dumber threads I've read. Why doesn't the government contribute? What a stupid fucking question. Where does the OP think that money comes from? Us!!!

The whole concept is that people contribute when they work and their employer likewise contributes. If the government were to contribute then it would just be raising taxes to pay for its contribution.

This is the mentality of stupidity that government has a money tree that magically produces funding for things without having a source for that funding.

The CPP is just forced savings. If it wasn't there all those dummies complaining about it would spend that money and have nothing when they retire. Thus forcing the government (via increased taxes from the rest of us!) to pay for their stupidity by supporting them in their old age.

 

[SkyRider]

If it wasn't there all those dummies complaining about it would spend that money and have nothing when they retire.

Usually spent on useless things like wine, women and song.

 

[waterloodude]

That's not true, CPP is actuarially sound. In the US, Social Security is nearer to being a Ponzi scheme. Social Security "invested" all its money in loans to the US government, which spent the money in general budget.

That said, Social Security is much more generous than CPP, even after this reform. I guess that's just the socialist nature of the USA.

With the change back to 65 from 67 it is no longer sound over the long term.

 

[goalie000]

If the government wanted to help retired seniors just a little, then stop taxing the CPP and let them have their whole pension payment no matter what the amount.

 

[FAST]

If the government wanted to help retired seniors just a little, then stop taxing the CPP and let them have their whole pension payment no matter what the amount.

And drop the RRSP tax/claw back, assuming the Fiberals actually wanted to help the middle class, but we all know that is a lie.

FAST

 

[spankey]

Untrue.

Unlike in the US where Social Security tax goes into general revenue, in CPP your contribution goes into an investment fund that is dedicated to CPP and is not spent by the government.

Spoken like another brainwashed leftist. But it's ok Liberals you can have him,we didn't want this one anyway...

 

[fuji]

Spoken like another brainwashed leftist. But it's ok Liberals you can have him,we didn't want this one anyway...

I notice you didn't have any factual content in your post. My guess if you don't actually know anything about how CPP is managed, you just like insulting people.

 

[spankey]

I notice you didn't have any factual content in your post. My guess if you don't actually know anything about how CPP is managed, you just like insulting people.

The fact is you seem to carry the torch for these corrupt habitual bull shiters whom feast on the likes of you to preach their gospel. There are facts beond the print that most of us see through.

 

[fuji]

The fact is you seem to carry the torch for these corrupt habitual bull shiters whom feast on the likes of you to preach their gospel. There are facts beond the print that most of us see through.

Another content free post. You still haven't even hinted at knowing anything about CPP.

It's a fact that the CPP fund is invested in income generating assets and that the money is not given to or spent by the government.

That fact won't change no matter how much bullshit you post, not even is you insult me again.

 

[spankey]

Another content free post. You still haven't even hinted at knowing anything about CPP.

It's a fact that the CPP fund is invested in income generating assets and that the money is not given to or spent by the government.

That fact won't change no matter how much bullshit you post, not even is you insult me again.

Carry the flag with pride my friend!

 

[fuji]

Carry the flag with pride my friend!

Thanks for conceding that you didn't actually know anything about this topic. Next time refrain from posting.

 

[bigshot]

With the change back to 65 from 67 it is no longer sound over the long term.

As Fuji has stated, the CPP is actually sound. You are able to receive payments any time from the age of 60. If you are speaking about the roll back to age 65 from 67, I hope that you understand that this is for the OAS only. They are two different plans and it appears that some of the posters here have little understanding of the two programs...

 

[bigshot]

And drop the RRSP tax/claw back, assuming the Fiberals actually wanted to help the middle class, but we all know that is a lie.

FAST

There is NO RRSP clawback! OAS payments are subject to a clawback based on your income (if you earn more than $72k), but the RRSP is paid out as a pension based on your contributions and the length of time you have been invested. Please inform yourself...

 

[bigshot]

If the government wanted to help retired seniors just a little, then stop taxing the CPP and let them have their whole pension payment no matter what the amount.

This sounds like great idea, but if you don't tax the RRSP payouts, then all other forms of pensions should be tax free as well. They are all pensions! We all pay tax on our income, including those who draw a pension. To make this all tax free would result in a significant loss of revenue to the government, which would be made up from ... (wait for it) ... more tax increases!

 

[FAST]

There is NO RRSP clawback! OAS payments are subject to a clawback based on your income (if you earn more than $72k), but the RRSP is paid out as a pension based on your contributions and the length of time you have been invested. Please inform yourself...

OK,...probably should have worded it differently.

My point was, that to tax someone who made an effort to be financially responsible, considering the growing concern of retires, and the current Liberal "concern" about the middle class.

But who ever said the Liberals prefer people to be responsible, the opposite is more likely, judging on how they handle handouts.

And RRSP's are NOT a pension, Please inform yourself.

FAST

 

[bigshot]

OK,...probably should have worded it differently.

My point was, that to tax someone who made an effort to be financially responsible, considering the growing concern of retires, and the current Liberal "concern" about the middle class.

But who ever said the Liberals prefer people to be responsible, the opposite is more likely, judging on how they handle handouts.
FAST

On this, we do agree! I have worked all my life to provide for myself in retirement, and do not rely on an employer pension or the government for my financial security. My only regret is that I will not be one of the chosen ones on the receiving end of government largess to their friends and supporters. I was hoping to land the C.E.O. position on the proposed ORSP, but now that Justin has bailed out Katie W from this sink hole, there will be one less government pop barrel from which to feed. Of course, there are still 50 people working on this cancelled plan, but whose counting?

 

[basketcase]

...

And RRSP's are NOT a pension, Please inform yourself.

FAST

They are income that has had income tax deferred. When you take it out it is now income. And yes, even if you make no investment income, you still save a load because (for most people) the their retirement income is lower so they are taxed at a lower rate than if they were taxed when they earned it. The tax structure already has great incentives to use RRSPs.

 

[FAST]

They are income that has had income tax deferred. When you take it out it is now income. And yes, even if you make no investment income, you still save a load because (for most people) the their retirement income is lower so they are taxed at a lower rate than if they were taxed when they earned it. The tax structure already has great incentives to use RRSPs.

Why are you stating the obvious, just why the hell do you think it bought into RRSP's.

But that was NOT my point, that was then, this is now.

FAST

 

[benstt]

I have worked all my life to provide for myself in retirement, and do not rely on an employer pension or the government for my financial security.

I don't understand people being okay with not landing a good pension from their employer. I know the world has shifted away from good employer-provided pensions (ie the shift from defined benefit to defined contribution), but do people really think that is progress?

 

[bigshot]

I don't understand people being okay with not landing a good pension from their employer. I know the world has shifted away from good employer-provided pensions (ie the shift from defined benefit to defined contribution), but do people really think that is progress?

Employer sponsored pensions are fine, but not everyone has an employer. Having said that, when you are self employed and take action to secure your future, it can stick in your craw when you see the kinds of pensions that the civil service is getting. When you do not have a company pension, you pay for your own retirement as well as their's...