Text only | Text with Images

THeBlueCashew

General Discussion => The Flea Trap => Topic started by: Obvious Li on September 08, 2014, 06:23:01 AM

Title: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Obvious Li on September 08, 2014, 06:23:01 AM
too lazy to find the original thread but for everyone, except RW, this should give you the definitive answers on the subject.....RW and Romero are true believers and logic and facts have no place in their thinking about any given topic.....



Take the mother of all defined benefit pension plans, the federal Public Service Pension Plan. The PSPP covers nearly half a million active and retired members. The annual cost of PSPP pensions is estimated to be about 20% of pay with employees paying about 8% (and rising), leaving the government, and ultimately the taxpayer, to pay the other 12% of pay. This cost estimate, however, is based on the plan earning a real return (net of inflation) of 4.1% whereas the risk-free rate earned these days is less than 1%.



Herein lies the problem: if the pension cost were determined using the risk-free rate, then the total cost would be closer to 44% of pay, or 24% of pay higher than the above estimate. Hence, the government's share of the true pension cost in the PSPP is about 36% of pay, which is about 30% of pay more than the average pension cost in the private sector.

Related



    study

   

Detailed studies have shown that the cash compensation of federal public sector workers (below the executive level) is comparable to, or slightly in excess of, cash compensation in the private sector. This excludes pensions. The cost of pensions is an element of compensation which we shouldn't ignore, as Mr. Yussuff would agree since he makes it a point to identify pensions as deferred wages. On a total compensation basis, the conclusion is that federal public sector workers are overpaid by about 30%.



We got to where we are because of the opaque nature of defined benefit pension plans. Pension costs are easy to ignore and hard to understand. Bringing public sector compensation back into line would require one of the following actions: (a) sharply reducing cash compensation, (b) severely cutting pension benefits or (c) converting defined benefit pensions to target benefit pensions. The first two options are draconian and almost certainly unworkable. The third is ultimately necessary if real interest rates stay so low.



The key message here is that the value of defined benefit pensions for compensation purposes should be determined using risk-free real rates of return rather than an estimate of what a risky portfolio will earn (4.1% in this case). Unions will of course argue that the 4.1% rate is more appropriate in determining pension cost since it is a best estimate so there is a good chance that the pension assets will actually earn that rate of return. If they truly believe this to be the case, then they should have no problem with target benefit pensions. The fact they do have a problem with target benefit is tacit acknowledgement that the actual real return might be less than 4.1%, which will lead to a future deficit that they would like someone else to pay.



Workers understandably want an iron-clad guarantee that their full benefits will be paid, regardless of what capital markets do, but pricing this properly requires costs to be determined using the risk-free discount rate (1%). In the case of the PSPP, we end up with the startling result that the cost of the guarantee is higher than the best estimate cost of the pension being guaranteed (24% versus 20%). And what price does the federal government place on this guarantee when setting compensation? 0%. It is natural that any participant of such a defined benefit plan would want to maintain the status quo.



And this is why defined benefit plans are dying. Such plans do not fit in well with a total compensation approach to setting wages. A growing number of plan sponsors are realizing that the true cost of guaranteeing DB pensions is not only very high, it is much higher than employees would voluntarily accept if high pension costs automatically triggered reductions in cash compensation.



The above arguments are laid out in considerable detail, and with unrelenting logic, in two C.D. Howe commentaries written recently by Malcolm Hamilton. These should be required reading for anyone involved in negotiating pension benefits, regardless of which side of the bargaining table they are on.



Note that the federal PSPP is one of the more egregious examples of undervaluing the pension promise. Most provincial public-sector pension plans are governed more responsibly in the form of Jointly Sponsored Pension Plans where the true cost lies somewhere between the cost of a traditional DB plan and that of a target benefit plan.



As a final observation, it is ironic that while labour groups dislike target benefit plans, they are pushing hard for an expansion of the Canada Pension Plan which is itself a target benefit plan.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Romero on September 08, 2014, 03:04:35 PM
Those good ol' "hidden costs" again. If they're hidden, who do they know they even exist?



"Canada Pension Plan's hidden costs make it three times more expensive to run than reported"



Bull. Again, you can't claim there are hidden costs if you don't even know they exist. Those expenses have to come from somewhere and it's not as if they can all just hide it.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Obvious Li on September 08, 2014, 08:26:56 PM
Quote from: "Romero"Those good ol' "hidden costs" again. If they're hidden, who do they know they even exist?



"Canada Pension Plan's hidden costs make it three times more expensive to run than reported"



Bull. Again, you can't claim there are hidden costs if you don't even know they exist. Those expenses have to come from somewhere and it's not as if they can all just hide it.




i think you've outdone yourself this time homy.....follow me pls....the govt. is afraid if the public really knew what these parasites were getting for pensions there would be riots in the streets....it hides the true cost of pensions for govt. union slugs by fudging the reports.....some bright guy decides to take a closer look and figures out the true cost and reports it in the newspaper...ergo..they are no longer hidden....what was lost is now found...getting it yet
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 08, 2014, 08:38:12 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"
Quote from: "Romero"Those good ol' "hidden costs" again. If they're hidden, who do they know they even exist?



"Canada Pension Plan's hidden costs make it three times more expensive to run than reported"



Bull. Again, you can't claim there are hidden costs if you don't even know they exist. Those expenses have to come from somewhere and it's not as if they can all just hide it.




i think you've outdone yourself this time homy.....follow me pls....the govt. is afraid if the public really knew what these parasites were getting for pensions there would be riots in the streets....it hides the true cost of pensions for govt. union slugs by fudging the reports.....some bright guy decides to take a closer look and figures out the true cost and reports it in the newspaper...ergo..they are no longer hidden....what was lost is now found...getting it yet

If Canadians actually knew how much snivel serpents pensions actually cost taxpayers there would be riots in the streets. Why the hell should my son have a financial burden placed around his neck as soon as he is born, so that unionized government workers can receive a pension nobody else gets? A total scam and now the truth is coming.



Good work OL :)  :D  :D  :D
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Romero on September 08, 2014, 08:58:41 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"the govt. is afraid if the public really knew what these parasites were getting for pensions there would be riots in the streets....it hides the true cost of pensions for govt. union slugs by fudging the reports.....some bright guy decides to take a closer look and figures out the true cost and reports it in the newspaper...ergo..they are no longer hidden....what was lost is now found...getting it yet

There is no evidence and no way to fudge the reports. That extra money would have to come from somewhere. They can't make it out of thin air.



That's why "some bright guy" calls the costs "hidden". He can't prove they exist.



What they get for pensions is right on their pension checks. People would easily find out if they were getting more than they should.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 08, 2014, 09:34:21 PM
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Obvious Li"the govt. is afraid if the public really knew what these parasites were getting for pensions there would be riots in the streets....it hides the true cost of pensions for govt. union slugs by fudging the reports.....some bright guy decides to take a closer look and figures out the true cost and reports it in the newspaper...ergo..they are no longer hidden....what was lost is now found...getting it yet

There is no evidence and no way to fudge the reports. That extra money would have to come from somewhere. They can't make it out of thin air.



That's why "some bright guy" calls the costs "hidden". He can't prove they exist.



What they get for pensions is right on their pension checks. People would easily find out if they were getting more than they should.

Every person in Canada is on the hook for an extra $9,000 to pay for the $300-billion (or more) in unfunded promises to public sector pension plans. The shortfall exists even though public sector employers (tax-paying folks like you and me) injected an extra $1.27-billion a year into these plans between 2001 and 2010, and that's on top of the large sums governments and public sector workers are already paying toward their pensions.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Romero on September 08, 2014, 10:34:32 PM
QuoteThe key message here is that the value of defined benefit pensions for compensation purposes should be determined using risk-free real rates of return rather than an estimate of what a risky portfolio will earn (4.1% in this case).



Workers understandably want an iron-clad guarantee that their full benefits will be paid, regardless of what capital markets do, but pricing this properly requires costs to be determined using the risk-free discount rate (1%).

The article is just assuming the return will be 1% in the future, but there's nothing indicating it will be.


QuoteYear at a Glance, 2012–13



The value of the public service pension plan net assets held by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board increased over the past year to $55.5 billion. The investment return for the year was 10.7 per cent, for an investment income of $5.1 billion after expenses.



(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/pspp-rrfp/2013/images/figure8-eng.jpg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rappor%20...%20e8-eng.jpg%22%3Ehttp://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/pspp-rrfp/2013/images/figure8-eng.jpg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)



//http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/pspp-rrfp/2013/rpspp-rrrfp-eng.asp

The return for the last fiscal year was 10.7%! Well above 4.1% and nowhere near 1%. It's only been growing since the recession. The article is assuming a worst-case scenario for the purpose of fear mongering.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Chickenfeets on September 08, 2014, 10:54:11 PM
Fiscal conservatives engage in fear-mongering?
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 08, 2014, 10:59:15 PM
Quote from: "Chickenfeets"Fiscal conservatives engage in fear-mongering?

It has nothing to do with conservatism or socialism. Kudos to the feds for making some reforms, but more radical change is inevitable. It doesn't matter which party wins either as eventually some government will be left with few other choices besides radical reform. You can't have 87% of the population's grandchildren financing golden db pensions they or their grandchildren will never receive themselves.  



While private-sector pension levels have remained flat, there were 3.14 million Canadians entitled to a public-sector pension as of last year. That's an increase of 26.6% since 2001 — more than double the rate of growth in private sector employment. There are more government employees than 10 years ago, which means the public-sector pension problem is getting out of control.



Things are even worse in the United States and Europe as municipal, state and national governments come to grips with massive budget deficits and accumulated debts.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 09, 2014, 12:06:26 AM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"too lazy to find the original thread but for everyone, except RW, this should give you the definitive answers on the subject.....RW and Romero are true believers and logic and facts have no place in their thinking about any given topic.....



Take the mother of all defined benefit pension plans, the federal Public Service Pension Plan. The PSPP covers nearly half a million active and retired members. The annual cost of PSPP pensions is estimated to be about 20% of pay with employees paying about 8% (and rising), leaving the government, and ultimately the taxpayer, to pay the other 12% of pay. This cost estimate, however, is based on the plan earning a real return (net of inflation) of 4.1% whereas the risk-free rate earned these days is less than 1%.



Herein lies the problem: if the pension cost were determined using the risk-free rate, then the total cost would be closer to 44% of pay, or 24% of pay higher than the above estimate. Hence, the government's share of the true pension cost in the PSPP is about 36% of pay, which is about 30% of pay more than the average pension cost in the private sector.

Related



    study

   

Detailed studies have shown that the cash compensation of federal public sector workers (below the executive level) is comparable to, or slightly in excess of, cash compensation in the private sector. This excludes pensions. The cost of pensions is an element of compensation which we shouldn't ignore, as Mr. Yussuff would agree since he makes it a point to identify pensions as deferred wages. On a total compensation basis, the conclusion is that federal public sector workers are overpaid by about 30%.



We got to where we are because of the opaque nature of defined benefit pension plans. Pension costs are easy to ignore and hard to understand. Bringing public sector compensation back into line would require one of the following actions: (a) sharply reducing cash compensation, (b) severely cutting pension benefits or (c) converting defined benefit pensions to target benefit pensions. The first two options are draconian and almost certainly unworkable. The third is ultimately necessary if real interest rates stay so low.



The key message here is that the value of defined benefit pensions for compensation purposes should be determined using risk-free real rates of return rather than an estimate of what a risky portfolio will earn (4.1% in this case). Unions will of course argue that the 4.1% rate is more appropriate in determining pension cost since it is a best estimate so there is a good chance that the pension assets will actually earn that rate of return. If they truly believe this to be the case, then they should have no problem with target benefit pensions. The fact they do have a problem with target benefit is tacit acknowledgement that the actual real return might be less than 4.1%, which will lead to a future deficit that they would like someone else to pay.



Workers understandably want an iron-clad guarantee that their full benefits will be paid, regardless of what capital markets do, but pricing this properly requires costs to be determined using the risk-free discount rate (1%). In the case of the PSPP, we end up with the startling result that the cost of the guarantee is higher than the best estimate cost of the pension being guaranteed (24% versus 20%). And what price does the federal government place on this guarantee when setting compensation? 0%. It is natural that any participant of such a defined benefit plan would want to maintain the status quo.



And this is why defined benefit plans are dying. Such plans do not fit in well with a total compensation approach to setting wages. A growing number of plan sponsors are realizing that the true cost of guaranteeing DB pensions is not only very high, it is much higher than employees would voluntarily accept if high pension costs automatically triggered reductions in cash compensation.



The above arguments are laid out in considerable detail, and with unrelenting logic, in two C.D. Howe commentaries written recently by Malcolm Hamilton. These should be required reading for anyone involved in negotiating pension benefits, regardless of which side of the bargaining table they are on.



Note that the federal PSPP is one of the more egregious examples of undervaluing the pension promise. Most provincial public-sector pension plans are governed more responsibly in the form of Jointly Sponsored Pension Plans where the true cost lies somewhere between the cost of a traditional DB plan and that of a target benefit plan.



As a final observation, it is ironic that while labour groups dislike target benefit plans, they are pushing hard for an expansion of the Canada Pension Plan which is itself a target benefit plan.

I wonder what the state of our provincial plan is?
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Obvious Li on September 09, 2014, 05:44:08 AM
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Obvious Li"too lazy to find the original thread but for everyone, except RW, this should give you the definitive answers on the subject.....RW and Romero are true believers and logic and facts have no place in their thinking about any given topic.....



Take the mother of all defined benefit pension plans, the federal Public Service Pension Plan. The PSPP covers nearly half a million active and retired members. The annual cost of PSPP pensions is estimated to be about 20% of pay with employees paying about 8% (and rising), leaving the government, and ultimately the taxpayer, to pay the other 12% of pay. This cost estimate, however, is based on the plan earning a real return (net of inflation) of 4.1% whereas the risk-free rate earned these days is less than 1%.



Herein lies the problem: if the pension cost were determined using the risk-free rate, then the total cost would be closer to 44% of pay, or 24% of pay higher than the above estimate. Hence, the government's share of the true pension cost in the PSPP is about 36% of pay, which is about 30% of pay more than the average pension cost in the private sector.

Related



    study

   

Detailed studies have shown that the cash compensation of federal public sector workers (below the executive level) is comparable to, or slightly in excess of, cash compensation in the private sector. This excludes pensions. The cost of pensions is an element of compensation which we shouldn't ignore, as Mr. Yussuff would agree since he makes it a point to identify pensions as deferred wages. On a total compensation basis, the conclusion is that federal public sector workers are overpaid by about 30%.



We got to where we are because of the opaque nature of defined benefit pension plans. Pension costs are easy to ignore and hard to understand. Bringing public sector compensation back into line would require one of the following actions: (a) sharply reducing cash compensation, (b) severely cutting pension benefits or (c) converting defined benefit pensions to target benefit pensions. The first two options are draconian and almost certainly unworkable. The third is ultimately necessary if real interest rates stay so low.



The key message here is that the value of defined benefit pensions for compensation purposes should be determined using risk-free real rates of return rather than an estimate of what a risky portfolio will earn (4.1% in this case). Unions will of course argue that the 4.1% rate is more appropriate in determining pension cost since it is a best estimate so there is a good chance that the pension assets will actually earn that rate of return. If they truly believe this to be the case, then they should have no problem with target benefit pensions. The fact they do have a problem with target benefit is tacit acknowledgement that the actual real return might be less than 4.1%, which will lead to a future deficit that they would like someone else to pay.



Workers understandably want an iron-clad guarantee that their full benefits will be paid, regardless of what capital markets do, but pricing this properly requires costs to be determined using the risk-free discount rate (1%). In the case of the PSPP, we end up with the startling result that the cost of the guarantee is higher than the best estimate cost of the pension being guaranteed (24% versus 20%). And what price does the federal government place on this guarantee when setting compensation? 0%. It is natural that any participant of such a defined benefit plan would want to maintain the status quo.



And this is why defined benefit plans are dying. Such plans do not fit in well with a total compensation approach to setting wages. A growing number of plan sponsors are realizing that the true cost of guaranteeing DB pensions is not only very high, it is much higher than employees would voluntarily accept if high pension costs automatically triggered reductions in cash compensation.



The above arguments are laid out in considerable detail, and with unrelenting logic, in two C.D. Howe commentaries written recently by Malcolm Hamilton. These should be required reading for anyone involved in negotiating pension benefits, regardless of which side of the bargaining table they are on.



Note that the federal PSPP is one of the more egregious examples of undervaluing the pension promise. Most provincial public-sector pension plans are governed more responsibly in the form of Jointly Sponsored Pension Plans where the true cost lies somewhere between the cost of a traditional DB plan and that of a target benefit plan.



As a final observation, it is ironic that while labour groups dislike target benefit plans, they are pushing hard for an expansion of the Canada Pension Plan which is itself a target benefit plan.

I wonder what the state of our provincial plan is?




the numbers will be smaller..but the abuses will be the same....it is all a ponzi sceme designed to rip off taxpayes and reward govt. workers by shielding the true cost of their employment......this has been going on for 40 years...fueled by govts. of every persuasion and completely and totally out of control...if left unchecked it will bankrupt the country......you are inadvertently contributing to the situation
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: RW on September 09, 2014, 05:55:29 AM
I'd debate this but I'm not going to put my knowledge base against media showmanship.  



I will say that they need to stop topping these plans up based on insignificant under valuation speculations.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 09, 2014, 07:39:55 AM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Obvious Li"too lazy to find the original thread but for everyone, except RW, this should give you the definitive answers on the subject.....RW and Romero are true believers and logic and facts have no place in their thinking about any given topic.....



Take the mother of all defined benefit pension plans, the federal Public Service Pension Plan. The PSPP covers nearly half a million active and retired members. The annual cost of PSPP pensions is estimated to be about 20% of pay with employees paying about 8% (and rising), leaving the government, and ultimately the taxpayer, to pay the other 12% of pay. This cost estimate, however, is based on the plan earning a real return (net of inflation) of 4.1% whereas the risk-free rate earned these days is less than 1%.



Herein lies the problem: if the pension cost were determined using the risk-free rate, then the total cost would be closer to 44% of pay, or 24% of pay higher than the above estimate. Hence, the government's share of the true pension cost in the PSPP is about 36% of pay, which is about 30% of pay more than the average pension cost in the private sector.

Related



    study

   

Detailed studies have shown that the cash compensation of federal public sector workers (below the executive level) is comparable to, or slightly in excess of, cash compensation in the private sector. This excludes pensions. The cost of pensions is an element of compensation which we shouldn't ignore, as Mr. Yussuff would agree since he makes it a point to identify pensions as deferred wages. On a total compensation basis, the conclusion is that federal public sector workers are overpaid by about 30%.



We got to where we are because of the opaque nature of defined benefit pension plans. Pension costs are easy to ignore and hard to understand. Bringing public sector compensation back into line would require one of the following actions: (a) sharply reducing cash compensation, (b) severely cutting pension benefits or (c) converting defined benefit pensions to target benefit pensions. The first two options are draconian and almost certainly unworkable. The third is ultimately necessary if real interest rates stay so low.



The key message here is that the value of defined benefit pensions for compensation purposes should be determined using risk-free real rates of return rather than an estimate of what a risky portfolio will earn (4.1% in this case). Unions will of course argue that the 4.1% rate is more appropriate in determining pension cost since it is a best estimate so there is a good chance that the pension assets will actually earn that rate of return. If they truly believe this to be the case, then they should have no problem with target benefit pensions. The fact they do have a problem with target benefit is tacit acknowledgement that the actual real return might be less than 4.1%, which will lead to a future deficit that they would like someone else to pay.



Workers understandably want an iron-clad guarantee that their full benefits will be paid, regardless of what capital markets do, but pricing this properly requires costs to be determined using the risk-free discount rate (1%). In the case of the PSPP, we end up with the startling result that the cost of the guarantee is higher than the best estimate cost of the pension being guaranteed (24% versus 20%). And what price does the federal government place on this guarantee when setting compensation? 0%. It is natural that any participant of such a defined benefit plan would want to maintain the status quo.



And this is why defined benefit plans are dying. Such plans do not fit in well with a total compensation approach to setting wages. A growing number of plan sponsors are realizing that the true cost of guaranteeing DB pensions is not only very high, it is much higher than employees would voluntarily accept if high pension costs automatically triggered reductions in cash compensation.



The above arguments are laid out in considerable detail, and with unrelenting logic, in two C.D. Howe commentaries written recently by Malcolm Hamilton. These should be required reading for anyone involved in negotiating pension benefits, regardless of which side of the bargaining table they are on.



Note that the federal PSPP is one of the more egregious examples of undervaluing the pension promise. Most provincial public-sector pension plans are governed more responsibly in the form of Jointly Sponsored Pension Plans where the true cost lies somewhere between the cost of a traditional DB plan and that of a target benefit plan.



As a final observation, it is ironic that while labour groups dislike target benefit plans, they are pushing hard for an expansion of the Canada Pension Plan which is itself a target benefit plan.

I wonder what the state of our provincial plan is?




the numbers will be smaller..but the abuses will be the same....it is all a ponzi sceme designed to rip off taxpayes and reward govt. workers by shielding the true cost of their employment......this has been going on for 40 years...fueled by govts. of every persuasion and completely and totally out of control...if left unchecked it will bankrupt the country......you are inadvertently contributing to the situation

I have a defined benefit plan Obvious Li, but we still save for our own retirements..



My husband doesn't have a defined pension plan, so he sets aside a percentage of his income.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 09, 2014, 10:09:47 AM
Federal civil servants until recently only had to contribute 37% towards their own retirements. I work in financial services and my clients pay 100% for their retirements. Doesn't seem right that the civil service and politicians are getting something from us that we are not entitled to.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Obvious Li on September 10, 2014, 06:48:14 AM
Quote from: "Real Woman"I'd debate this but I'm not going to put my knowledge base against media showmanship.  



I will say that they need to stop topping these plans up based on insignificant under valuation speculations.






uh-huh..right..........Huffington Post/Georgia Straight ....good......everything else bad...lol :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: RW on September 10, 2014, 06:58:50 AM
I was learning about pension before the Huffington Post was a player.



You and I both know that I know my shit re:pensions.  I've spanked you enough times that it's undeniable.  I just can't bring myself to argue with media info.  You can't read some newspaper shit and expect to have your fingers on the pulse of pension understanding.



seoul - compensation packages / renumeration packages include benefits which include pension contributions.  You need to think if it as part of the pay package.



Poverty is a bad bad thing people!  That applies to pensioners too!!!!
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Chickenfeets on September 10, 2014, 09:41:55 AM
Well, poverty is certainly a bad thing if you're poor.



The rich, who get rich on the backs of the poor, would beg to differ.



On second thought, scratch that. The rich don't beg. They just take.



*smokebomb*
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: RW on September 10, 2014, 12:56:00 PM
Poverty isn't good for anyone, including the rich.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Obvious Li on September 11, 2014, 05:19:02 AM
RW...you are attempting to defend the indefensible....you cannot win this argument...all the facts are on my/others side...you are left with trying to put lipstick on the pig to find it a good home....sorry it just won't wash......the real numbers cannot be covered up any longer.....civil servant pensions will eventually bankrupt this country and must be abolished...simple as that



sometimes stubbornness can be an admirable trait......stupidity however, is not..... :ugeek:
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: RW on September 11, 2014, 06:06:38 AM
Learn to read please.  I said they need to can it with the topping up bullshit based on imaginary short falls on market dependent funds.  



And since you are so fucking smart Mu say, what's the reinvestment ratio of these plans into Canadian corporations?  How would said investment affect say job creation/employment?
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Obvious Li on September 11, 2014, 06:35:48 AM
Quote from: "Real Woman"Learn to read please.  I said they need to can it with the topping up bullshit based on imaginary short falls on market dependent funds.  



And since you are so fucking smart Mu say, what's the reinvestment ratio of these plans into Canadian corporations?  How would said investment affect say job creation/employment?




again...your comments are irrelevant.....who cares what amount of DB govt. pension monies are invested in canadian companies...and how many jobs they create.......this money is not new money that could be used to create wealth.......it is money stolen from the taxpayers and taken out of the economy.....who knows how many jobs could be created if these funds were left in the hands of private entrepreneurs to create more wealth....we will never know



always a puzzlement that people of a certain political persuasion seem to think money circulated from govt. employee paychecks is somehow new money and beneficial to the economy...these funds are taken directly form someone else who actually worked for them and redistributed to some civil servant who in most case is paid much more then the person they stole the funds from originally...and works far less for them..........how fucking insane does that all sound......the system is completely broken, needs to be scrapped and completely overhauled.....the problem is the govt. is very clever.....it gives enough voters a hand out each month to ensure the system never changes......taxpayers need to wake up and take care of business
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Chickenfeets on September 11, 2014, 09:26:32 AM
Admittedly, I don't know much about all this stuff, Mr. Munday, so I tend to keep quiet, but I am curious.



Among other things, as to why you keep equating taxes with theft. Seems to me it would be tough to run a country, any country, without requiring that its citizens contribute to maintaining and developing services and infrastructure that go to make up that country.



Call me clueless, but it's a genuine question.



I mean, what's the alternative? Rely on the goodwill alone of those who produce wealth? What am I not getting, here?
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 11, 2014, 09:53:58 AM
Quote from: "Chickenfeets"Admittedly, I don't know much about all this stuff, Mr. Munday, so I tend to keep quiet, but I am curious.



Among other things, as to why you keep equating taxes with theft. Seems to me it would be tough to run a country, any country, without requiring that its citizens contribute to maintaining and developing services and infrastructure that go to make up that country.



Call me clueless, but it's a genuine question.



I mean, what's the alternative? Rely on the goodwill alone of those who produce wealth? What am I not getting, here?

It's really sad that there are people that still believe taxation and even more of it is in their interests. Canadians spend more on taxes than food, shelter or clothing for their kids. Government was about providing good value for money and keeping costs low at one time, but that is all in the past now. It is a greedy beast now that keeps wanting more to provide good jobs/contracts to cronies and buy votes. I would like to see government put on a much shorter leash with a tighter collar. It's time we the people stopped the growth of the monster and regained our freedom.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Obvious Li on September 12, 2014, 05:24:05 AM
Quote from: "Chickenfeets"Admittedly, I don't know much about all this stuff, Mr. Munday, so I tend to keep quiet, but I am curious.



Among other things, as to why you keep equating taxes with theft. Seems to me it would be tough to run a country, any country, without requiring that its citizens contribute to maintaining and developing services and infrastructure that go to make up that country.



Call me clueless, but it's a genuine question.



I mean, what's the alternative? Rely on the goodwill alone of those who produce wealth? What am I not getting, here?




just speaking political theory here...there was a time long long ago when govt. had good intentions to try and help the less fortunate, stabilize it's various regions and standardize programs for all it's citizens......

that all changed with the introduction of income tax in WW1....greed and power entered the equation....then it was property taxes, then tobacco, alcohol, fuel, etc. etc.followed by regulations and associated fees for everything...govt. programs for every purpose and every one......it has become a monster, sucking the life from the country and it's citizens......IMHO govt. functions could be reduced by 80-90%....... introducing a flat 10% consumption tax would more than cover the cost of delivering basic services to the country and it's citizens....i could accept giving up 10% of my hard earned money to pay for essential services, provided they were non union and run rationally. Anything above that is outright theft...using the state to legally steal, doesn't change that.

Currently, any program administered by govt. is a complete boondoggle and waste of money..it is the nature of the beast...greed, power and ambition drive the decision making process..common sense went absent in the 1960`s...unfortunately we now have two generations of citizens and millions of recent immigrants who like receiving govt. services..thank you very much....and wish to keep it that way...thus the system will remain intact....the country now sits at 650 billion in debt federally, probably 400 billion provincially,  plus another trillion in unfunded pension liabilities for all unionized govt. workers...who knows how big the number can get before the pyramid scheme fails....when it does a lot of people will feel the pain.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 12, 2014, 04:02:42 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"just speaking political theory here...there was a time long long ago when govt. had good intentions to try and help the less fortunate, stabilize it's various regions and standardize programs for all it's citizens......

that all changed with the introduction of income tax in WW1....greed and power entered the equation....then it was property taxes, then tobacco, alcohol, fuel, etc. etc.followed by regulations and associated fees for everything...govt. programs for every purpose and every one......it has become a monster, sucking the life from the country and it's citizens......IMHO govt. functions could be reduced by 80-90%....... introducing a flat 10% consumption tax would more than cover the cost of delivering basic services to the country and it's citizens....i could accept giving up 10% of my hard earned money to pay for essential services, provided they were non union and run rationally. Anything above that is outright theft...using the state to legally steal, doesn't change that.

Currently, any program administered by govt. is a complete boondoggle and waste of money..it is the nature of the beast...greed, power and ambition drive the decision making process..common sense went absent in the 1960`s...unfortunately we now have two generations of citizens and millions of recent immigrants who like receiving govt. services..thank you very much....and wish to keep it that way...thus the system will remain intact....the country now sits at 650 billion in debt federally, probably 400 billion provincially,  plus another trillion in unfunded pension liabilities for all unionized govt. workers...who knows how big the number can get before the pyramid scheme fails....when it does a lot of people will feel the pain.

It amazes me how so many people in the "enlightened" West fall for this idea that more and more needs to be done and damn the cost to you and I. I was reading some of EU's "wisdom" on the other forum and he called people in Singapore soul less robots or some stupid shit like that. The people in Singapore would never accept the increases in taxes and fees that Canadians have had to endure for so many decades. However, no point in trying to reason with a dunce that thinks money grows on other people's trees.



Canadians have become like sheep. If we want to get control over our own paycheques again, we need to let the three levels of government know we won't stand for this slippery slope that they have placed us on.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Romero on September 12, 2014, 05:16:35 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"unfortunately we now have two generations of citizens and millions of recent immigrants who like receiving govt. services..thank you very much....and wish to keep it that way.

The hypocrisy is astonishing.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 12, 2014, 05:56:16 PM
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Obvious Li"unfortunately we now have two generations of citizens and millions of recent immigrants who like receiving govt. services..thank you very much....and wish to keep it that way.

The hypocrisy is astonishing.

It wouldn't be hypocritical if EI was a REAL insurance program. Then again, if it was a real insurance program OL's premiums would be so high he would have to opt out of it.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Obvious Li on September 12, 2014, 07:01:19 PM
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Obvious Li"unfortunately we now have two generations of citizens and millions of recent immigrants who like receiving govt. services..thank you very much....and wish to keep it that way.

The hypocrisy is astonishing.

It wouldn't be hypocritical if EI was a REAL insurance program. Then again, if it was a real insurance program OL's premiums would be so high he would have to opt out of it.




guys you need to really really try and understand the EI system in which NO govt. money is involved....they are merely the trustees of the plan...the contributions to EI consist of employee and employer funds only...in fact there is such a large surplus every year in EI that the govt. steals/appropriates the surplus and adds it to general revenue and adds that amount to the unfunded liability side of the balance sheet..fucking pure theft...otherwise they could lower my premiums or increase my payouts substantially.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 12, 2014, 08:28:43 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"guys you need to really really try and understand the EI system in which NO govt. money is involved....they are merely the trustees of the plan...the contributions to EI consist of employee and employer funds only...in fact there is such a large surplus every year in EI that the govt. steals/appropriates the surplus and adds it to general revenue and adds that amount to the unfunded liability side of the balance sheet..fucking pure theft...otherwise they could lower my premiums or increase my payouts substantially.

I totally get that no taxpayer money is involved handsome. I am also aware that governments(especially the former Liberal government) uses surpluses from it for other things. Yes, that is legalized theft of private money which if you were to do at your company would put you in jail. This is why I would prefer the private sector to administer the program and make paying into it voluntary.



However, it is NOT a rel insurance program. We have private auto insurance in Alberta. We pay very high rates because both of us have been at fault and had claims against our insurer. Let's say someone like yourself has had a clean slate for the past 10+ years, you would be paying much lower premiums than myself. The same thing should apply to EI. Repeat users should have higher premiums than those of us that will NEVER use it.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Romero on September 12, 2014, 08:44:09 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"guys you need to really really try and understand the EI system in which NO govt. money is involved

Employees and employers pay the premiums, right? Well, government employees work for the government. So some tax money is going towards EI recipients.



And from a source you would highly approve of:


QuoteHow EI Increases Unemployment and Steals Billions from Working Canadians



The EI program is extremely inefficient with administration costs ringing in at $28 billion between 1993-94 and 2011-12 or $4 million every day. The admin costs take $400 a year out of the hands of a dual-income household.



EI is one of the biggest sources of revenue for the federal government, reaching $20.4 billion in 2012-13. This is 58 per cent as much as was received through corporate income taxes or 47 per cent as much as the government collects in tariffs and duties. While the case can be made – and the CTF does – that business, income taxes and tariffs are too high in Canada, at least taxpayers can see tangible benefits for their tax dollars in infrastructure spending, national defence and health care. The difference with EI is that the vast majority of Canadians see no benefit to this tax in any given year, while a minority of the population collects from the program on an annual basis.



//http://www.taxpayer.com/media/EI%20ReportCTFNov2013.pdf

It's easy for you to make excuses since you're making money not to work, but EI is funded by workers, employers, government and taxpayers. It's a government program and you are receiving a government benefit. Notice the "Government of Canada" on your checks. Notice how your checks look no different from family allowance and welfare checks.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 12, 2014, 11:08:40 PM
^Funny how Romero is agreeing with OL. OL says the feds role is that of trustees of the program and Romero posts a link from CTF saying the governments admin costs are too high. OL says the government steals the surplus cash they collect from employees and employers to pay for real taxpayer funded departments and Romero's link shows EI to be one of the biggest sources of revenue for gov't.



OL, Romero and I all agree then that what the government does with the money collected from employees and employers is in fact. A good reason to replace government as administrators of the program.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 13, 2014, 01:49:14 AM
Quote from: "Chickenfeets"Well, poverty is certainly a bad thing if you're poor.



The rich, who get rich on the backs of the poor, would beg to differ.



On second thought, scratch that. The rich don't beg. They just take.



*smokebomb*

But why should we all get a little poorer so our elected representatives can receive something we won't? It's also placing future generation in debt. It doesn't seem moral to me. I wish we had better smilies to show my outrage.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Obvious Li on September 13, 2014, 07:04:05 AM
Quote from: "Shen Li"^Funny how Romero is agreeing with OL. OL says the feds role is that of trustees of the program and Romero posts a link from CTF saying the governments admin costs are too high. OL says the government steals the surplus cash they collect from employees and employers to pay for real taxpayer funded departments and Romero's link shows EI to be one of the biggest sources of revenue for gov't.



OL, Romero and I all agree then that what the government does with the money collected from employees and employers is in fact. A good reason to replace government as administrators of the program.




you and i are always correct princess..here is a little more evidence for the unbelievers....





Finance Minister Joe Oliver denied this week that his government is using E.I. premiums as a "slush fund," but the actuarial report released Friday is fuelling criticism that the Conservatives are tapping into E.I. funds meant for the unemployed in order to pay for other priorities.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Obvious Li on September 13, 2014, 07:06:06 AM
and of course you will note the use of the term.....EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 13, 2014, 10:19:48 AM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"
you and i are always correct princess..here is a little more evidence for the unbelievers....





Finance Minister Joe Oliver denied this week that his government is using E.I. premiums as a "slush fund," but the actuarial report released Friday is fuelling criticism that the Conservatives are tapping into E.I. funds meant for the unemployed in order to pay for other priorities.

Yes, they are indeed premiums, NOT tax revenue.



The feds using the surplus to pay down the deficit and increase spending before an election is no surprise. It blows my mind how the Harper Tories are so much like their predecessors Chretien/Martin. I mean there are diffs of course. With the exception of Martin's two years as PM, they always had comfortable majorities unlike the Harper Tories that were more often in a minority gov't position. The other thing and it is huge is that the Grits never had to govern during the global recession. We should be thankful that Jim Flaherty was such a steady hand at the wheel. Canada had the best government of all G7 nations through that very difficult period.



You are missed Jim Flaherty.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 15, 2014, 10:06:11 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"and of course you will note the use of the term.....EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS

I usually don't look at that portion of my e-pay stub..



Every other pay period is union dues though.
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Romero on September 15, 2014, 11:00:32 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"Ottawa will get $3.5-billion too much from EI premiums in 2015, report says

Look at you trying to convince us it's okay for workers and government to pay you for not working just because there's a surplus.



Well, guess what? The federal public service pension plan you're railing against has a surplus too! $28 billion total as of 2012!



Are you planning on going on EI in the future? Let's call it an "unfunded liability".
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Obvious Li on September 16, 2014, 03:23:10 AM
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Obvious Li"Ottawa will get $3.5-billion too much from EI premiums in 2015, report says

Look at you trying to convince us it's okay for workers and government to pay you for not working just because there's a surplus.



Well, guess what? The federal public service pension plan you're railing against has a surplus too! $28 billion total as of 2012!



Are you planning on going on EI in the future? Let's call it an "unfunded liability".




apparently you are still confused Homy.....the public service pension plan is funded by TAX dollars and EI is funded by INSURANCE PREMIUMS....notice i have put the two different items in bold with caps for your convenience......you are also more than a little confused if you believe the federal public service pension plan has a surplus.....it currently sits at a $450 billion liability status....open a book homy, use google or read a newspaper..it is all there for the inquiring mind to find.....good luck with your search...... :ugeek:
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Obvious Li on September 16, 2014, 03:29:23 AM
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Obvious Li"Ottawa will get $3.5-billion too much from EI premiums in 2015, report says

Look at you trying to convince us it's okay for workers and government to pay you for not working just because there's a surplus.



Well, guess what? The federal public service pension plan you're railing against has a surplus too! $28 billion total as of 2012!



Are you planning on going on EI in the future? Let's call it an "unfunded liability".




oh yes...as soon as the greedy corporation we work for gives us our ROE (right after thanksgiving weekend) the dragon and i will be applying for EI and packing for the casino circuit.....once the first cheque hits our account we will head for Saskatoon then Calgary then Edmonton then Vancouver then on to Vegas......back home in march.....just living the dream baby
Title: Re: Final word on DB pensions....
Post by: Anonymous on September 16, 2014, 11:29:40 AM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"


apparently you are still confused Homy.....the public service pension plan is funded by TAX dollars and EI is funded by INSURANCE PREMIUMS....notice i have put the two different items in bold with caps for your convenience......you are also more than a little confused if you believe the federal public service pension plan has a surplus.....it currently sits at a $450 billion liability status....open a book homy, use google or read a newspaper..it is all there for the inquiring mind to find.....good luck with your search...... :ugeek:

I think we all(including Romero) get this difference in funding between public service pensions and EI.



However, there is a great deal of variance on the actual numbers of Canada's unfunded pension liabilities. The Auditor General says it is $152 billion, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business puts the figure around $300 billion or about $9000 or about for every man, woman and child in Canada. What is not in dispute is that years of low interest rates and people living longer are creating havoc for the future of public service DB pensions.
Text only | Text with Images