Pension Plans
- Thread starter SkyRider
- Start date
Public servants, teachers, etc. have them. Not too many others.
It is slowly dawning on these "labour aristocrats" that they enjoy significant wealth through the funding of taxpayers.
This is not a rant...it is a statement of fact. It will now be interesting to see how they react to McGuinty having to cut government expenses.
It is slowly dawning on these "labour aristocrats" that they enjoy significant wealth through the funding of taxpayers.
This is not a rant...it is a statement of fact. It will now be interesting to see how they react to McGuinty having to cut government expenses.
We can argue about whether the salary of civil servant "A' or "B" is an appropriate use of tax dollars or a waste, but there's another way of looking at this.
Pensions aren't there to make these people wealthy. They are there to provide a stable, but usually modest, retirement. Everyone should have that.
I'll never understand why the knee jerk reaction from those who don't have such a pension is to blame those who do. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to blame the captains of industry and finance who own the businesses that refuse to provide similar pensions for their employees? And don't tell me they can't afford it. When 1% of the populace controls 80% of the wealth (or whatever that absurd ratio is), then that's where the problem lies.
Either they have pensions or we pay for them on welfare.
You know who have bullet-proof pensions? The military. I don't hear people complaining about them, though.
You know who have bullet-proof pensions? The military. I don't hear people complaining about them, though.
No, in fact I don't, just my nest egg.
Sure I resent a civil servant who doesn't earn their pay as much as the next tax payer, but I do not resent the existence of their pensions. I believe anger towards those who have pensions is misplaced.
Sure I resent a civil servant who doesn't earn their pay as much as the next tax payer, but I do not resent the existence of their pensions. I believe anger towards those who have pensions is misplaced.
Not a government employee but my employer does provide a pension plan which is a combo DC/DB and the DB is fully funded. I think the number is arouind 35% of Canadians have an employer sponsored pension plan which is a sad state of affairs. The other sad state of affairs is why don't you have a pension plan where you work or if you are a independent contractor why don't you go and buy a plan for yourself that your corp would pay for? There are single person defined benefit plans that you can buy and also do past service contributions. Check out a good consulting actuarial firm if your interested.
Lots of places have good pension plans, both government and non-government. Going forward there will be less defined benefit plans as these are the ones that are hard to keep well funded (when markets tanks especially). The new rules that will allow greater overfunding without penalizing the funding company will go a long ways towards stabilizing these...eventually.
But lots of people have done very very well with defined contribution plans as well...especially if they missed the last downturn. Some had considerably more income from those than from defined benefit plans (if they took them as a annuity at the right time).
But lots of people have done very very well with defined contribution plans as well...especially if they missed the last downturn. Some had considerably more income from those than from defined benefit plans (if they took them as a annuity at the right time).
Everyone with a pension thinks they're safe.........no one is safe and no one else is gonna take care of you but you
Why?
From DAY ONE of my working career I've been told by friends / family / financial advisers to take care of my OWN pension/retirement. So I have and it's helped my buy a home and save for retirement. I control where I put my money and how risky I wish to be. Please enlighten me financial people of TERB. Do government employees pay out of their own pocket into pensions like the rest of us, or are they covered 100% by my taxes?
Are my private RRSPs protected by the government if the markets go apeshit?
Op
From DAY ONE of my working career I've been told by friends / family / financial advisers to take care of my OWN pension/retirement. So I have and it's helped my buy a home and save for retirement. I control where I put my money and how risky I wish to be. Please enlighten me financial people of TERB. Do government employees pay out of their own pocket into pensions like the rest of us, or are they covered 100% by my taxes?
Are my private RRSPs protected by the government if the markets go apeshit?
Op
Whether government or non government pensions are paid for by both employee and employer, usually 50-50, although some unions have negotiated different deals. Deductions for government employees total approximately 7% of salary, this includes both CPP and pension. The CPP and pension is combined...the benefit of approximately 2% per year of service up to a maximum of 70% (the federal plan) is the combination of CPP and pension. So, if a fed worker goes the full 35 years they would get 70% of their best 5 or 6 year average salary on retirment, including CPP.
Government pensions are generally fully funded, that is there is money set aside to pay them, similar to CPP, and this money has come from the contributions by employers and employees, not your tax money (except in the sense that you pay for government operations)
Your RRSPs may or may not be guaranteed, in most cases not. It depends on how much and what they are invested in...just like any other investment. If they are invested in mutual funds the value goes up and down just like any other mutual fund investment.
I think public sector pensions are extremely generous. I know several teachers and Revenue Canada retirees who retired on a full pension in their mid-50's and went on to a second career (sometimes as a "consultant") while drawing a full pension. I also heard that a City of Toronto policeperson (and fireperson?) can retire at age 45.
Cycleguy007
Banned
I think it is an age + yrs of service = 80 or something like that... Meaning if a teacher started teaching at the age of 24... but the time he or she was 52, they could retire with full pension... (52+28 = 80...) Not sure if 80 in the magic number, but that's how it works.
I think that if we are going to have pension plans (a valid question) then they should be independent of the company sponsoring them and insured by the government.
The pension should be fully funded, with the cash held by an external company that administers the pension.
Specifically companies should not be allowed to claim that the pension will be funded from future revenue. That is anathema to the notion that a company should be a risk-taking venture that is willing to put the entire enterprise at risk in order to seize what looks like a promising opportunity.
Employees should have stability in their savings, and companies should be free to undertake large risks.
When the company is on the hook for the pension that is the worst of both worlds: Either the government has to step in and prevent risk taking (bad), or the company is taking risks with worker's savings (bad).
It's one thing to be laid off from your job when a risk the company took sinks the business, but you can go get another job. It's quite another thing to have your pension pulled out from under your feet years after you've already retired.
I see no justification whatsoever, no benefit to business, no benefit to workers, in carrying pensions on the company books rather than on the books of a pension administrator.
The pension should be fully funded, with the cash held by an external company that administers the pension.
Specifically companies should not be allowed to claim that the pension will be funded from future revenue. That is anathema to the notion that a company should be a risk-taking venture that is willing to put the entire enterprise at risk in order to seize what looks like a promising opportunity.
Employees should have stability in their savings, and companies should be free to undertake large risks.
When the company is on the hook for the pension that is the worst of both worlds: Either the government has to step in and prevent risk taking (bad), or the company is taking risks with worker's savings (bad).
It's one thing to be laid off from your job when a risk the company took sinks the business, but you can go get another job. It's quite another thing to have your pension pulled out from under your feet years after you've already retired.
I see no justification whatsoever, no benefit to business, no benefit to workers, in carrying pensions on the company books rather than on the books of a pension administrator.
Similar threads
