The Shotgun Blog
« Soldiers. In Our Schools. | Main | Government Madness »
Friday, October 30, 2009
I'm Old. Give Me Your Money.
The whiniest generation enters their golden years. Reach for your wallets folks.
Canada's largest seniors' advocacy group has escalated its pension reform campaign with the release of a paper calling for a new, national pension plan to replace the Canada Pension Plan. A new public retirement savings plan that is "universally accessible, affordable, adequate and sustainable," is need to replace woefully inadequate CPP benefits, says CARP, formerly known as the Canadian Association of Retired People.
[…]
The position paper for a new universal plan contains few specifics. CARP says it could be a single national fund modelled on the CPP or a system of provincial and even regional funds. "The focus of debate should be on whether the various options would provide the level of robustness and sustainability that is critical to providing an adequate level of retirement security for all Canadians," says the paper. "The current economic crisis has focused public attention on the need for Canadians to prepare for their own retirement and on the absence of a universally accessible vehicle to do so effectively."
All of which is elaborate code for: We blew all our money, didn't save enough and we're asking our children and grandchildren to bail us out. On behalf of the young taxpayers of Canada: Cut down on your lattes, stop living off your credit cards and get out of my pockets. The word Canadian was once synonymous for rugged self reliance. That was before the Boomers took over.
Posted by Richard Anderson on October 30, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Social security will be a very difficult program to repeal. My baby boomer parents constantly inform me that they've paid into this their entire lives and now they deserve to get their "fair share".
As far as I can tell, the younger generation is screwed no matter what. There is no amount of taxation that will possibly fill the gap, but I'm sure that will be tried nonetheless. So once taxes are raised, I see 2 choices: 1) inflate the money supply (very bad); 2) we'll have to support our parents because they haven't saved enough (slightly less bad).
What we really need to do is end social security. That's probably impossible for the boomers, but workers under a certain age should do the right thing and renounce their claim on future benefits.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-10-30 8:54:51 AM
Maybe repealing social security is the answer.
But if it is, please pay me everything I have paid into it plus interest.
I have been working and paying into the program since my early twenties, for all of my working career. Seeing as how I am currently looking down both barrels at sixty, I do indeed deserve my "fair share".
My parent's generation are the ones that really benefitted from the program, as they paid in relatively little and reaped all the benefits.
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2009-10-30 9:12:36 AM
"CARP." What a politically unfortunate acronym. Alas also a perfect one, given the organization's raison d'etre.
Charles, you haven't mentioned the third choice: warehousing them like military recruits. Dormitory-style barracks with bunk beds, 50 to a room, simple civic duties tailored to their abilities, crafts and activities, and cafeteria. And if you REALLY want to save money, no union staff.
What the boomers don't seem to realize, have never been able to realize, is that they are not seventeen anymore and would be easy targets for young, vigorous, angry Gen Xers and Yers. If it comes right down to it, we could confiscate their assets. Up to now seniors have been held in respect, but that practice may go by the wayside if this particular generation of seniors continues to act like fifteen-year-olds with an unshakable sense of entitlement.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-30 9:31:05 AM
P.S. Baby boomers smoke a lot, so it's entirely possible they won't live long enough to become a real burden. I've already lost one parent to cigarettes, and the other one isn't quitting.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-30 9:32:21 AM
I am retired, but not yet 65. My pension plan provides that at age 65, my current pension income will be reduced by an amount equivalent to what I will be "entitled" to receive from the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP). If we want to change the rules, let's consider those people whose retirement plans were based on the above. That's what I consider my "fair share".
Posted by: Nothing New Under the Sun | 2009-10-30 10:03:08 AM
Came to Canada fully educated,trained and invited by the Gov.Paid into CPP for forty plus years so I think something is owed.
Posted by: Goff Tayler | 2009-10-30 10:33:22 AM
In other words "I'm old. Give me your money" should read: "I'm old. It's too late for me to make other plans for retirement. I'm already there."
Posted by: Nothing New Under the Sun | 2009-10-30 10:36:50 AM
Glad you're not in charge of looking after seniors Shane!
The particular prospect of relying on the largess of the state is why I have been aquiring assets for my retirement, instead of fiddling around and hoping someone else will look after me.
BTW, you or some other angry person of any generation might try to confiscate my assets, but you wouldn't even be able to limp off. I have a bad attitude towards property crime plus I grew up with guns.
I think the present generation in the workforce is by far the whiniest, and possesses the largest sense of entitlement ever seen.
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2009-10-30 11:01:39 AM
Ed,
Social security is a giant ponzi scheme. The truth is simple: there's not enough of me to pay for you. There is nothing you can do. You won't get your "fair share". Either the benefits will be cut, or they'll inflate. Either way, we both lose.
To be honest, I'd prefer we honestly deal with this issue honestly instead of screwing people over by inflating.
I know I'm personally willing to renounce any future benefit that would accrue to me if we can somehow end this madness.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-10-30 11:52:47 AM
"Up to now seniors have been held in respect, but that practice may go by the wayside if this particular generation of seniors continues to act like fifteen-year-olds with an unshakable sense of entitlement."
Posted by: Shane Matthews
But if that happens, just wait to see what happens to the Xes and Ys when they rely on their grandchildren.
Posted by: Timothy | 2009-10-30 11:56:02 AM
What's this about being "owed"? Economists and various financial experts have been sounding the alarm bell for decades warning that social security is insolvent. Society does not have the resources to pay for what is "owed". And honestly, younger generations do not "owe" older generations anything. If someone burglarizes my house, does the rest of the neighborhood "owe" me something?
Posted by: Charles | 2009-10-30 11:59:54 AM
Charles,
You are quite right, the Ponzi scheme called CPP has been tweaked multiple times over the years, and it still looks like most people paying in will never see a nickel, my generation included.
I personally have no expectation of collecting any cheques which is why many years ago I decided to look after myself.
CPP looks like another failed socialist scheme that sounded really good to the first ones in line, and progressively worse to everyone after that.
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2009-10-30 12:43:02 PM
Ed,
That's exactly what I do as well. I save about 30% of my after-tax income (excluding bonus and dividends).
Posted by: Charles | 2009-10-30 1:08:50 PM
If we want to change the rules, let's consider those people whose retirement plans were based on the above. That's what I consider my "fair share".
Perhaps we should also consider those now too young to vote and thus have a say in these matters, yet will be expected to foot the bill, Ed. What debt have they incurred from you, that they would owe you this "fair share" you claim? How will you justify requiring them to pay more than you did for less than you feel you ought to receive?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-30 1:11:48 PM
Social security is broken for the same reason the welfare state in general is broken--they were based on projections that assumed a constantly growing population and balanced demographic distributions. In the early 20th century, that seemed a valid assumption. But it isn't true any longer, so untrue in fact that Canada must now import a quarter million immigrants every year just to offset our incredibly low fertility rate, and in a few decades the current ratio of workers to retirees will shrink from one to five down to one to three, if trends continue. Trends can be broken, but this one would be a tougher nut to crack than most.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-30 1:17:52 PM
Timothy, how much respect a generation commands is generally commensurate with how much their conduct has earned. The baby boomers' parents brought us through a war and into a prosperous modern age, having survived a Depression. In short, they were good role models, even if they smoked and drank too much for modern tastes. Next to that, the legacy of the baby boomers will be pretty terrible. They're widely reviled by their descendants, and much of that dislike is justified.
Gen X and Gen Y will be fine so long as they provide good role models and prove competent at filial, social and community stewardship. Fortunately, their own parents have set the bar pretty low.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-30 1:21:32 PM
Shane,
As I have indicated above, I have no expectations that I will ever receive any money from the CPP.
If it "owes" me anything, it is what I paid into it.
I have paid more than my parents did in to CPP, therefore your question of me could have been asked of my parents a few decades ago in the 60's. "Why are your kids expected to pay more into the plan than they will take out?" The answer is someone thought Canada should be a great socialist pie-in-the-sky place to live, therefore it was part of the deal if you worked.
The CPP worked well for a time, like any Ponzi scheme, but has been plagued by diminishing returns for the reasons you mentioned and more.
I have incurred no debt for this country as I have been a productive tax-paying consumer in good health for all of my working career, nor do I intend to take my money off-shore when I retire.
If CPP breaks, and I will expect it to, I will not be a burden for you or anyone else.
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2009-10-30 2:34:08 PM
@Shaner:
""CARP." What a politically unfortunate acronym. Alas also a perfect one, given the organization's raison d'etre.
Charles, you haven't mentioned the third choice: warehousing them like military recruits. Dormitory-style barracks with bunk beds, 50 to a room, simple civic duties tailored to their abilities, crafts and activities, and cafeteria. And if you REALLY want to save money, no union staff.
What the boomers don't seem to realize, have never been able to realize, is that they are not seventeen anymore and would be easy targets for young, vigorous, angry Gen Xers and Yers. If it comes right down to it, we could confiscate their assets. Up to now seniors have been held in respect, but that practice may go by the wayside if this particular generation of seniors continues to act like fifteen-year-olds with an unshakable sense of entitlement.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-30 9:31:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. Baby boomers smoke a lot, so it's entirely possible they won't live long enough to become a real burden. I've already lost one parent to cigarettes, and the other one isn't quitting."
Little by little, little feller, you reveal just how and why you are so disturbed.
You want to steal my tax dollars to fund your hate overseas. You want to warehouse seniors. You want to seize their assets and enslave "them".
I tell you one thing, Shaner: YOU will be dealt with long before you get anywhere NEAR one of this country's senior citizens. I don't give a good god dam how screwed up your relationship with your parents is (tho it does explain why you wound up in the CF).
Decent people will not stand by and permit you to advocate elder abuse, or, otherwise bully, threaten, or terrorize seniors.
You have finally removed yourself beyond the Pale, sicko. Your psychopathology has finally come into stark relief where seniors are concerned.
I promise you, Shaner, bullies and cowards like you will find no traction in any systemic or personal attempt to attack or abuse seniors. Count on it, coward.
How truly evil do you have to be to participate on a comment board by advocating hate crimes against seniors? Because you are angry at your parents?
Disappear, Shane. Your nazi-inspired eugenicist fascist crap is a discredit to anybody who lowers him or herself to engage you again after this.
Posted by: John Collison | 2009-10-30 4:03:28 PM
The CPP needs to be phased out.
It ought, as Ron Paul suggests, be about the last thing to be terminated.
There countless other government programs that can be terminated first.
The $20 billion Ottawa has blown in Afghanistan would cover a lot of penson cheques en route to the CPP's sunset.
Ditto the countless billions blown on the War on Drugs.
That is just for starters.
Posted by: John Collison | 2009-10-30 4:08:55 PM
The psychopathology of contemporary Canadian fascism, rendered as public policy:
"Charles, you haven't mentioned the third choice: warehousing them like military recruits. Dormitory-style barracks with bunk beds, 50 to a room, simple civic duties tailored to their abilities, crafts and activities, and cafeteria. And if you REALLY want to save money, no union staff.
What the boomers don't seem to realize, have never been able to realize, is that they are not seventeen anymore and would be easy targets for young, vigorous, angry Gen Xers and Yers. If it comes right down to it, we could confiscate their assets. Up to now seniors have been held in respect, but that practice may go by the wayside if this particular generation of seniors continues to act like fifteen-year-olds with an unshakable sense of entitlement."--Shane Matthews
Posted by: John Collison | 2009-10-30 4:14:02 PM
Political hate:
"the legacy of the baby boomers will be pretty terrible. They're widely reviled by their descendants, and much of that dislike is justified." --Shane Matthews
This guy is speaking of an ENTIRE generation. His PARENTS' generation. Do we need to know anymore about this guy?
Posted by: John Collison | 2009-10-30 4:16:16 PM
The psychological underpinnings of the fascist politics of hate:
"Baby boomers smoke a lot, so it's entirely possible they won't live long enough to become a real burden. I've already lost one parent to cigarettes, and the other one isn't quitting."--Shane Matthews
Generalization. Wishing the worst on people. Sucking the system dry himself (with his military and police state fetishes) while scapegoating an ENTIRE GENERATION.
Posted by: John Collison | 2009-10-30 4:19:54 PM
Glad you're not in charge of looking after seniors Shane!
Who are you kidding, Ed? I lived in such conditions voluntarily when I was in the army, plus far worse in the field. A person could live well and long in the conditions I have described, and it certainly beats kicking them into the streets to drink themselves to death once the pensions run out and they can't pay the rent. It would be a very good way to maximize use of scant resources while maintaining a decent standard of care. Of course, this is mostly for the folks who don't have children to care for them.
The particular prospect of relying on the largess of the state is why I have been aquiring assets for my retirement, instead of fiddling around and hoping someone else will look after me.
A sound plan. Not everyone in your generation has demonstrated such foresight.
BTW, you or some other angry person of any generation might try to confiscate my assets, but you wouldn't even be able to limp off. I have a bad attitude towards property crime plus I grew up with guns.
We have something in common then, Ed. My preferred calibre is the .45-70 Government, and my Marlin XLR will put those 550-grainers into a golf ball at 100 yards. A lot more accurate than most of these fire-breathing mega-magnums with Hubble-like riflescopes people dote on nowadays. And no, I don't like thieves either.
However, I'm guessing that you've made it this far without shooting your local tax collector, and any such "confiscation" would more likely take the form of official coercion—for instance, not being eligible for pension payments (or lump sum payments) if you own your own home, car, or other reasonably liquid assets that you can live without (even if such a life would suck). Fair? No. But the alternative isn't fair either, and the polis will pick whatever option sucks least for them at the voting box.
I think the present generation in the workforce is by far the whiniest, and possesses the largest sense of entitlement ever seen.
Like hell. Your generation grew up during a labour shortage, minimal education requirements, and cheap homes and cars. My father bought his first house in Vancouver in 1964 for $11,000, and back then, a good 4-door went for about three grand. Today, adjusting for inflation, that house sells for six times as much, and an equivalent car, three times as much. By contrast, wages have increased by less than 1 1/2 times, and many young university grads today are starting their careers with debt loads in excess of $50,000. Tell me again how good we have it, Ed.
Older folks always think youngsters are whiny and spoiled, and those complaints have merit. However, most generations outgrow these traits eventually. Perhaps you outgrew them personally, but your generation never did, and that is unique in modern history. They're still chasing eternal youth, and the indignities of old age fill them with such dread that they now clamour for doctors to put them out of their misery so they won't have to endure it—also unique in modern history. Teen behaviour is insufferable enough coming from a 15-year-old. Coming from a person old enough to collect CPP, it is nothing short of unspeakable.
The CPP worked well for a time, like any Ponzi scheme, but has been plagued by diminishing returns for the reasons you mentioned and more.
Agreed.
If CPP breaks, and I will expect it to, I will not be a burden for you or anyone else.
I expect your generation as a whole will be, however. Even so, what goes around comes around. According to recent statistics, up to 2/3 of boomer families are now having to care for their aging parents. So perhaps they'll grow up at last.
In any case, the situation isn't critical yet, so even if it does break, you probably will have departed for greener pastures by then.
P.S. It was not my intention to impugn you personally.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-30 4:22:44 PM
The psychopathology of contemporary Canadian fascism, rendered as public policy.
Gee. And all this time I thought it was just an efficient use of space, resources, and community planning.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-30 4:23:54 PM
Little by little, little feller, you reveal just how and why you are so disturbed.
Howled the manic-depressive under the light of the full Moon.
You want to steal my tax dollars to fund your hate overseas. You want to warehouse seniors. You want to seize their assets and enslave “them”.
Shouldn’t those quotes have been put around “enslave” instead of “them”?
Decent people will not stand by and permit you to advocate elder abuse, or, otherwise bully, threaten, or terrorize seniors.
You post these hate-filled screeds and then purport to speak for “decent” people? How does designing housing around a model to which I willingly subjected myself constitute abuse? The fact is, it doesn’t. But scant heed to facts do you pay when you can charge in with a screeching clarion call to “SAVE THE SENIORS!”
You have finally removed yourself beyond the Pale, sicko. Your psychopathology has finally come into stark relief where seniors are concerned.
You don’t even attempt to debate the issues anymore. You’re just a two-bit troll. Well, I don't pay tolls to insects.
I promise you, Shaner, bullies and cowards like you will find no traction in any systemic or personal attempt to attack or abuse seniors. Count on it, coward.
Again with the “attack” and “abuse.” Can you substantiate these accusations, or are you just a nickel-ante libel whore like Oog? For that matter, ARE you Oog? Oog has so many false names I’m reduced to comparing styles. Let’s see, his and yours. Psychotic flame attacks? Check. Evades topic and spews libellous pap? Check. Semi-literate emotional fucktard? Check. Uses a pseudonym? Check. Follows me from blog to blog? Check. When confronted, beats chest, swings dick, and assumes pose of Alpha Male of the entire Universe? Check.
How truly evil do you have to be to participate on a comment board by advocating hate crimes against seniors? Because you are angry at your parents?
Funny, I didn’t think providing people with room and board was a crime. Hey, maybe I’d better go look it up.
Disappear, Shane. Your nazi-inspired eugenicist fascist crap is a discredit to anybody who lowers him or herself to engage you again after this.
And yet you’ll be back, and thus by these words, discrediting yourself even further than your bilious, flames-coming-out-of-the-ass rants have already done. You are such a lewd, lurid cartoon of a man it isn’t funny. Why don't you try disappearing me, tough guy? If you're no better at finding people than Oog (assuming you are not Oog), I can kick back and watch House while you nibble away at the ankles of some guy in Minnesota.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-30 4:37:07 PM
Generalization. Wishing the worst on people.
Pointing out that smoking has health risks is a generalization, or that there will be consequences for smokers is wishing the worst on people? Are you stoned, John?
Sucking the system dry himself (with his military and police state fetishes) while scapegoating an ENTIRE GENERATION.
Said the guy who scapegoated the people who defend his right to be a pissant in public without being subject to the punishments he'd receive in a REAL police state, not just one that won't let him make a minefield out of his front yard—assuming he has employment steady enough to afford a yard.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-30 4:40:09 PM
This guy is speaking of an ENTIRE generation. His PARENTS' generation. Do we need to know anymore about this guy?
Retread. Rejected.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-30 4:40:45 PM
The $20 billion Ottawa has blown in Afghanistan would cover a lot of penson cheques en route to the CPP's sunset. Ditto the countless billions blown on the War on Drugs.
You may as well quit beating around the bush, John. You'd abolish the whole government if you could, and have us living in the Wild West. If you like lawlessness and militias so much, why don't you MOVE to Afghanistan? The place seems to have everything you want.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-30 4:42:49 PM
Shane,
It is apparent to me that we are not going to agree on the generational thing at all, and not ever.
You don't like my generation and I don't like yours. Not unusual for successive generations to not "get along". I'll spare you the reasons I don't like the X & Y generations. Basically too different in philosophies and outlooks.
Please review the following link at your leisure:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/60minutes/main3475200.shtml
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2009-10-30 5:45:40 PM
First, Ed, that article is merely someone's opinion; in fact, it is the opinion of a sensationalistic trendspotter who flits from fad to fad like a nervous bat. The same one, in fact, that coined the term "metrosexual" (already passé), introduced us to "cuspers," expounded on "the Future of Men?" and declared that the day of the boomers is already done, despite the fact that they now hold all the positions of power. Like most trendspotters (and their devotees), she has the attention span of a flea.
Secondly, it was written before the current recession, and I doubt it was current even then. I work mostly with millennials, and in general find them reasonably mature for their age. I'm not their boss, but I command a measure of respect through a combination of personality, demonstrated competence, and experience. I don't force my opinion on anyone. But my advice is often heeded.
They're all fairly uneducated, mind you; at most they have some college. Highly educated people (read: yuppies) are much more likely to act as prima donnas (and I say this as a university-educated man) but again, given this job market, I think we've seen the end of that for a while.
P.S. I'm forty, so I don't really qualify as a Millennial.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-30 6:35:14 PM
Frankly, this whole mess is the politicians fault. There would be more than enough money to continue the CPP into eternity if it was managed correctly. But it is not. Much like our oil/gas, lumber, fisheries, and a number of other things, our politicians sold it off for peanuts, or bungled the whole thing. We should not sell our future to the US and the rest of the world. But we do, thanks to our gutless politicians. We need to stop selling our resources so cheap. Produce it for our selves and screw the rest of the world. Make it so one person can support a family and our population will grow again, then we won't need immigration to the degree we have it now. I think our biggest problem is this idea of a one world government.
Anyway, back to seniors. We wouldn't be here without them. They should be revered and well looked after. We can whine about the money all we want, but money is just bits of paper. The problem with Shanes warehouse idea is it strips people of their individuality. Even old people are individuals. I think once I hit retirement age and if I am unable to sustain my self for some reason, I will rob politicians, past and present, as they are robbing us.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-10-30 9:41:23 PM
Steve, enough with the anti-American horseshit, already. This thread has nothing to do with American policies. We get that you hate that you can't buy legal dope. We get that you blame the Americans for it, which makes everything they do evil and rotten. We get that. Moving on.
Resources are commodities, and the price of commodities is set by the markets. If we tried to charge more for exports, our customers would simply take their custom elsewhere. And there aren't nearly enough of us to consume all the resources now put out by the resource industries; scaling back for domestic production only would put the kiss of death to about 80% of the jobs in them. And neither politicians nor the workers who elect them are going to accept that kind of sacrifice just so you can piss in the Americans' punch.
Getting back to seniors. Putting people in dormitories does not strip them of their individuality. Some privacy, yes, but not their individuality. And it certainly preserves more of their dignity than turning off the tap altogether, which is what some people are proposing. I agree seniors should command respect, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to earn it. Being a community elder, like most other things in life, carries more responsibilities than privileges.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-31 1:31:04 AM
I never said anything about American policy. The US is our biggest trading partner,hence the mention. Nothing about drug policy, no "I hate the yanks rant", which I don't, I just disagree with some of the aspects of their policies when they affect Canada. None the less, no anti-yank rant. So calm down.
As to your second paragraph, so? Its gonna happen soon anyway, might as well turn the taps to a trickle now. We would get a better price later. And preserve it for things that absolutely need petroleum. Why the rush to piss it all away?
Oh yeah, the mighty dollar.
What I mean to get at is people who make it to retirement should get enough to be comfortable until death. Not be eating KD every day, because the choice is food or medicine, or housing. If the CPP had been managed correctly, that should have been easily attainable. Why are politicians never held accountable? Couple billion goes missing and nothing happens. Money wasted every day that could be better spent on essentials.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-10-31 2:23:22 AM
I never said anything about American policy. The US is our biggest trading partner, hence the mention.
You made it sound like they're bleeding us dry and trying to make us into the 51st state. Neither is true. They buy our stuff because we sell it. And they are not interested in acquiring ten provinces when seven of them are economic basket cases.
As to your second paragraph, so? Its gonna happen soon anyway, might as well turn the taps to a trickle now. We would get a better price later.
How do you KNOW we would get a better price later? And since we would be selling only to ourselves, and not to the world market, we could set our own prices. Your callous "So?" to the prospect of hundreds of thousands of unemployed pretty sums up your approach to economics: fuck the world.
By the way, nothing absolutely needs petroleum; it is possible to grow enough biomass to meet our energy needs, although the initial capital outlay would probably dwarf what the government has spent on stimulus packages this year. We only use petroleum because it's already there waiting to be slurped up.
What I mean to get at is people who make it to retirement should get enough to be comfortable until death. Not be eating KD every day, because the choice is food or medicine, or housing.
Define "comfortable." Under the barracks system I proposed, that requirement would be met. I'm not saying it's my preferred approach; I'm just saying that it would be a way to stretch resources should they become too scarce to continue the current practices.
If the CPP had been managed correctly, that should have been easily attainable.
The CPP, like other welfare measures, was designed around the model of a constantly expanding population that would maintain the ratio of workers to retirees. Demographic realities have since shifted, breaking this model. The only way to keep it viable would have been to constantly hike the premiums, and that was a political non-starter.
Why are politicians never held accountable? Couple billion goes missing and nothing happens. Money wasted every day that could be better spent on essentials.
Like what? According to you, that government governs best which governs least. You want them out of every business conceivable. What would they spend two billion dollars on anyway?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-31 10:20:07 AM
"What I mean to get at is people who make it to retirement should get enough to be comfortable until death."
Yes they should. Which is why they should be allowed to keep their savings and invest them. They should absolutely not be expropriated and have their savings be handed out immediately to someone else.
Those who have not been able to save enough for their retirement should be helped by charities and local governments.
"If the CPP had been managed correctly, that should have been easily attainable."
I'm curious, why do you assume that a central authority will be better able to manage someone else's savings?
Posted by: Charles | 2009-11-01 11:25:19 AM
We could go in circles forever with all the hype of we versus them. People are all individuals and cannot be boxed into age groups or any other imposed identity. As some have rightly pointed out, we likely would not be having this discussion, if the government had not spent CPP contributions as fast as they came in. Again the same with GST, environment tax, gasoline tax and just about every type of tax going into general revenue instead of being used for the purposes for which it was collected. It is understandable that people who were forced to pay into the CPP all their working years (often over 40 years) are upset that they may never be able to retrieve what they paid. They cannot be dismissed as free-loaders.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-11-01 1:08:11 PM
Charles, please tell me that you know better than to believe that everyone is a good saver.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-01 1:09:36 PM
shane said:
"How do you KNOW we would get a better price later?
We know we could get a better price later because oil is not unlimited, nor renewable.
shane said:
"And since we would be selling only to ourselves, and not to the world market, we could set our own prices."
Setting your own price above the world price of oil would mean that nobody in your country would buy the domestically produced oil and the firms would go out of business. People would buy the cheaper oil from abroad.
shane said:
"Charles, please tell me that you know better than to believe that everyone is a good saver."
Government is inefficient.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-11-01 6:14:24 PM
We know we could get a better price later because oil is not unlimited, nor renewable.
But it is replaceable.
Setting your own price above the world price of oil would mean that nobody in your country would buy the domestically produced oil and the firms would go out of business. People would buy the cheaper oil from abroad.
Providing they had that option. Our government is under no obligation to allow importation. Or rather, it would not be, if somehow all existing trade agreements instantly vanished and Canada was somehow able to redefine these relationships as Steve posits.
Government is inefficient.
And many private citizens and organizations are even less so. A third of all new businesses fold within a year, and many people enter retirement indebted to their eyeballs with no source of income. It's true government has less incentive to be efficient—they will not go out of business if they blow the wad—but to assume that they are always and automatically worse than all the other options is ridiculous.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-01 6:24:59 PM
shane said:
"but to assume that they are always and automatically worse than all the other options is ridiculous"
You are saying that the government can be trusted to take better care of you than you can of yourself.
shane said:
"But it is replaceable."
At a cost that, how did you put it, "dwarfs the cost of the bailout"?
shane said:
"Our government is under no obligation to allow importation."
Consumers would then lose. Sounds like fascism.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-11-01 6:47:18 PM
You are saying that the government can be trusted to take better care of you than you can of yourself.
No. I'm saying that the government can be trusted to take better care of some people than they can of themselves. Whether they ought to is another matter.
At a cost that, how did you put it, "dwarfs the cost of the bailout"?
You think turning off the spigot would be costless? As you point out, the oil supply is finite. Biomass replacements WILL have to be brought online; it's just a question of when. If we hoard all our petroleum until the biomass industry is in full swing, we'll be caught holding the equivalent of a warehouse full of buggy whips. This whole discussion is completely academic anyway; Canada is a member of OPEC and is likely to remain so.
Consumers would then lose. Sounds like fascism.
You were right, Alain. Here's the latest eqauting of fascism to something somebody doesn't like.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-01 8:49:01 PM
Crap. "Equating."
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-01 8:49:19 PM
Alain, your point about these various taxes going into general revenue instead of into specific funds is well taken, as is the fact that those expecting a return on their CPP payments cannot be dismissed as freeloaders. However, if there's nothing left, there's nothing left—that's the way it is. I suppose a class-action suit is possible, but even if it were successful, it would bankrupt the government, thus requiring raising taxes for the young even more. And there is a limit to what the young are willing to absorb for the benefit of the old.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-01 8:52:49 PM
Shane you are clueless. Canada is not a member of OPEC, umbdass.
And restriction of consumer choice by design or default most certainly is a symptom of fascism.
Your anal attitude toward spelling, typos, etc., really is grating. You are a living breathing example of someone who is alien to the art of language and attempts to turn it into a mechanistic set of rules all the while posing as some sort of high priest of said rules. You're a joke. You butcher the Queen's English routinely, and frankly, it is a piss poor fig leaf for your habitual lack of knowledge on most subjects.
You're idiotic anger is also getting tedious. So do everyone a favour -- get your facts straigh and/or shut the fuck up. Starting now.
I am so so very tired of your racism, your authoritarianism, your intolerance, your rudeness, your ignorance and inflated sense of utility on this planet.
In other words, time to cease and desist -- don't make me have to come over there...
Posted by: Ferdinand | 2009-11-01 9:24:01 PM
Re: Shane, OPEC, and every other bloody thing.
Hear, hear!
Posted by: North Shore | 2009-11-01 9:27:57 PM
Shane you are clueless. Canada is not a member of OPEC, umbdass.
So you're saying Canada is completely free to set its own price for oil independently of any pre-existing trade agreements? That is the thrust of the point.
And restriction of consumer choice by design or default most certainly is a symptom of fascism.
Who's the umbdass now? Do you have some kind of reference from a reputable source to back this up, or is it just your personal opinion? Your default insult, whenever you encounter anything you can't bend around your own little mind? You know what IS a symptom of fascism, though? Blind and doctrinaire ideology; e.g. all government is bad and everyone except me is an idiot.
Your anal attitude toward spelling, typos, etc., really is grating.
Did I, at any time, ever give you an indication, however indirect, that I cared what grated on your oversized bottom?
You are a living breathing example of someone who is alien to the art of language and attempts to turn it into a mechanistic set of rules all the while posing as some sort of high priest of said rules.
Translation: You don't let the rules get in your way; rules are for droids, whereas you are a freedom fighter and therefore above them. That pretty much sums up the libertarian attitude towards everything, doesn't it?
You're a joke. You butcher the Queen's English routinely, and frankly, it is a piss poor fig leaf for your habitual lack of knowledge on most subjects.
Got some examples of this butchery? Or, like your "fascism" quip, is it strictly off the cuff in a pathetic attempt to vent spleen while completely avoiding the actual subject? What is your contribution to this discussion, apart from sticking your finger down your throat and sicking up on somebody's shoes, and calling it debate? You pointed out ONE error I made. Well, congratu-fucking-lations. You can come over to my house and fuck my sister.
You're idiotic anger is also getting tedious. So do everyone a favour -- get your facts straigh and/or shut the fuck up. Starting now.
What'll you do if I don't, tough guy? You are hardly in a position to enforce your wishes. And who are you to lecture on the evils of anger, after writing a pathetic and error-ridden screed like this? And what kind of debating tactic is threatening? That is the tactic of the criminal and the thug. But then, a lot of libertarian types are already criminals, so why am I surprised?
I am so so very tired of your racism, your authoritarianism, your intolerance, your rudeness, your ignorance and inflated sense of utility on this planet.
Did I ask you what you were tired of? What's that? I didn't? Perhaps that's because I don't give six and seven-eighths of a cheap dimestore whore's fuck about your pathetic FEELINGS. Your feelings are of no importance to this or any other debate; your feelings are no make me SICK; your feelings are nothing but stinking, slimy, rancid little piles of dogshit in the gutter. So you can take the socks out of your sleeves and the crotch of your pants, slip into the bathroom, and cry your eyes out, you wee, small, pathetic, quavering little fraction of a man.
In other words, time to cease and desist -- don't make me have to come over there...
Why don't you get directions from Oog? His professional person-finding service, conducted from his own state-of-the-art manufacturing facility and backed by excursions in his 2008 F-350 Custom, comes with its very own, sure-fire, money-back, two-thousand-kilometre-radius guarantee. If you want him to not be high while handling your file, though, that's extra.
Bring armour, prick. You'll need it.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-01 10:27:27 PM
P.S. Not that wearing it will make any difference.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-01 10:40:21 PM
shane said:
"Whether they ought to is another matter."
Well then what exactly is your point? That SOME people are idiots? And that because of that its okay to strip them of there wealth and send them to boot camp after they spent a lifetime supporting others by paying taxes? I don't grasp your logic.
shane said:
"You think turning off the spigot would be costless? As you point out, the oil supply is finite. Biomass replacements WILL have to be brought online"
Unless a cheap, and easily installable engine converter is created and goes mainstream, we have plenty of time to sell oil. Just because someone puts a wind turbine in alberta doesn't mean your car won't take oil products anymore.
shane said:
"Canada is a member of OPEC and is likely to remain so."
This sums up the value of your input to this conversation.
shane said:
"You were right, Alain. Here's the latest eqauting of fascism to something somebody doesn't like."
fascism is fascism. Being defended by shane matthews doesn't change it's definition. Go look up corporatism.
shane said:
"That pretty much sums up the libertarian attitude towards everything, doesn't it?"
No.
shane said:
" That is the tactic of the criminal and the thug. But then, a lot of libertarian types are already criminals, so why am I surprised?"
Generalizing. Tactic of shane matthews when he is cornered.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-11-01 11:53:04 PM
shane said:
"You know what IS a symptom of fascism, though? Blind and doctrinaire ideology; e.g. all government is bad and everyone except me is an idiot."
You mean like: e.g. all religions are wrong except mine?
At least you are clear on the role of religion in society.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-11-02 12:21:06 AM
You mean like: e.g. all religions are wrong except mine?
I never said that, though, did I? And Pope John Paul II was a great promoter of interfaith harmony. The modern position of most religious people is to recognize that most if not all religions have redeeming value and are a positive influence on their worshippers. These days it seems that the only people with old-fashioned ideas about religion are the ones who aren't religious. Kind of like the ignorant, hate-filled attitude they accuse the Church of having had towards witches.
Well then what exactly is your point? That SOME people are idiots?
Bingo, Chester's dead.
And that because of that its okay to strip them of there wealth and send them to boot camp after they spent a lifetime supporting others by paying taxes? I don't grasp your logic.
Separate point. That was merely a suggestion of how to make more efficient use of resources should they become too scarce to fund the current system. It's certainly an improvement over leaving them with nothing.
Unless a cheap, and easily installable engine converter is created and goes mainstream, we have plenty of time to sell oil. Just because someone puts a wind turbine in alberta doesn't mean your car won't take oil products anymore.
Biodiesel will run in existing diesel engines, and numerous other biofuels, such as ethanol, will run in gasoline engines. The point is that hoarding these supplies would put thousands out of work and not give us any immediate or future advantage.
fascism is fascism. Being defended by shane matthews doesn't change it's definition. Go look up corporatism.
I did. Corporatism is not fascism. Fascism is defined as "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." If anything, the suggestion that we ought to pull out of the free trading of oil and not sell to anyone but us, under tight controls, is fascism, not the current system.
shane said: "That pretty much sums up the libertarian attitude towards everything, doesn't it?" No.
Yes, if you believe the libertarians on this board.
shane said:
" That is the tactic of the criminal and the thug. But then, a lot of libertarian types are already criminals, so why am I surprised?" Generalizing. Tactic of shane matthews when he is cornered.
But true. Many libertarians on this board are confessed pot smokers, and many more are flagrant scofflaws. Don't take my word for it; read their writings yourself. Go on, read them, including your own. You've made a virtual career out of defending one of Canada's most notorious drug criminals.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-02 12:40:05 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.