[bootlegga]

Psudo wrote:

Boots, it's not just about being afraid of being voted out. These are retirement accounts -- people's own money they've put in and are legally entitled to get back on the terms agreed to. It needs a kind of renegotiation of the contract between the government and the American people to choose new terms -- something that legally requires popular support if it's possible at all. If the US Government unilaterally changes the terms of the agreement to just not pay people for 10 years, it's going to drop our credit rating a lot more than the debt ceiling mess did.

I was specifically addressing Andy, who mentioned the Canadian programs, not US Social Security.

I'll admit I don't fully know how the US operates social security, but up here we have two programs in place; CPP (Canada Pension Plan) and OAS (Old Age Security). Everyone gets a fixed amount on OAS starting at 65 (although you can choose to take it later if you want larger monthly payments.

CPP is what people get for working, so housewives and other non-workers either don't qualify for it or get vastly reduced amounts because they stopped contributing to the plan when they stopped working. The government takes a fixed sum from everyone's earnings and then pays it out after they retire, so those who earn more wind up getting higher CPP payments (like any pension - the more you put in, the moreyou get at the end).

I see no reason why the Canadian government couldn't enact a law that says, OAS will start at the age of 67/68 effective January 1, 2020. The CPP might be a little trickier, but I think they could do that too. Extend the deadline on forced RRSP cashouts (when they have to be cashed in and can no longer be purchased (now at 69 to say 70/71) and you remove another hurdle. The only caveat might be that for people who still want it at 65, they can still get it, but at a reduced amount. Make that caveat expire a decade after that and you've placated the Boomers and given them up to two decades to bulk up their retirement savings.

The Xers, Millenials and everyone else following have plenty of time to deal with retirement and don't need any special caveats or deals.

[Psudo]

That's interesting. US Social Security is a mandatory pension program which, if I understand right, is more or less like the CPP part. There is also Social Security Disability Insurance, which is a true welfare program for a good cause and dramatically smaller than Social Security. Also, parts of Medicare are integrated into Social Security, such as certain benefits kicking in at retirement age.

The Social Security Act includes language entitling those who pay into the system to sue the US government if they do not receive their promised payout on the promised terms. This is the origin of the political term "entitlement," to distinguish from welfare programs for which the recipient has no legal standing to demand access. It was to reassure people that the money being taken away would not be squandered on reckless government spending. So, of course, government squandered a lot of the money on reckless spending. Reassuring, isn't it?

[bootlegga]

Psudo wrote:

That's interesting. US Social Security is a mandatory pension program which, if I understand right, is more or less like the CPP part. There is also Social Security Disability Insurance, which is a true welfare program for a good cause and dramatically smaller than Social Security. Also, parts of Medicare are integrated into Social Security, such as certain benefits kicking in at retirement age.

The Social Security Act includes language entitling those who pay into the system to sue the US government if they do not receive their promised payout on the promised terms. This is the origin of the political term "entitlement," to distinguish from welfare programs for which the recipient has no legal standing to demand access. It was to reassure people that the money being taken away would not be squandered on reckless government spending. So, of course, government squandered a lot of the money on reckless spending. Reassuring, isn't it?

I remember the Simpsons episode where Abe shows up with a box full of dollar bills, and when asked where he got it, he replied, "The government. I don't want it, I don't need it, but if they miss one payment, I'll raise hell!"

I like the idea behind CPP/Social Security, as it forces people to save at least something (however small), ensuring that they are not destitute when they reach retirement age. Ideally, everyone would save for their own retirement, but sometimes life has a nasty way of preventing that (spouse's death, divorce, children, college education, etc).

[andyt]

bootlegga wrote:

I like the idea behind CPP/Social Security, as it forces people to save at least something (however small), ensuring that they are not destitute when they reach retirement age. Ideally, everyone would save for their own retirement, but sometimes life has a nasty way of preventing that (spouse's death, divorce, children, college education, etc).

Then doubling the CPP would be twice as good, right? Actually it would save the govt money, since less people would be eligible for OAS. You could raise the minimum amount people could get to say $1200, but if your CPP amounts to more than that (it would top out at $2000) you get no OAS.

[bootlegga]

andyt wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

I like the idea behind CPP/Social Security, as it forces people to save at least something (however small), ensuring that they are not destitute when they reach retirement age. Ideally, everyone would save for their own retirement, but sometimes life has a nasty way of preventing that (spouse's death, divorce, children, college education, etc).

Then doubling the CPP would be twice as good, right? Actually it would save the govt money, since less people would be eligible for OAS. You could raise the minimum amount people could get to say $1200, but if your CPP amounts to more than that (it would top out at $2000) you get no OAS.

I'd only be for doubling payments if contributions were also doubled. Right now, with the Boomers representing so much of the population, all that doubling payouts would accomplish is to get the CPP into the same situation as US Social Security (the only reason it isn't is that the Liberals jacked up CPP contributions in the 90s).

[andyt]

bootlegga wrote:

I'd only be for doubling payments if contributions were also doubled. Right now, with the Boomers representing so much of the population, all that doubling payouts would accomplish is to get the CPP into the same situation as US Social Security (the only reason it isn't is that the Liberals jacked up CPP contributions in the 90s).

I already said that. That is the NDP's position on this, and I agree. And gradually raise the retirement age. Do what it takes to make the system self-funding.

Heck, I'm on a roll. Let's raise the minimum wage to a decent level, say $15. But, the govt takes some of your wages every month and puts it into a govt RRSP - You have to access this money first before you can go on EI or welfare. This would reduce EI and welfare payments, and EI premiums could be reduced.

[bootlegga]

andyt wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

I'd only be for doubling payments if contributions were also doubled. Right now, with the Boomers representing so much of the population, all that doubling payouts would accomplish is to get the CPP into the same situation as US Social Security (the only reason it isn't is that the Liberals jacked up CPP contributions in the 90s).

I already said that. That is the NDP's position on this, and I agree. And gradually raise the retirement age. Do what it takes to make the system self-funding.

Heck, I'm on a roll. Let's raise the minimum wage to a decent level, say $15. But, the govt takes some of your wages every month and puts it into a govt RRSP - You have to access this money first before you can go on EI or welfare. This would reduce EI and welfare payments, and EI premiums could be reduced.

Do you honestly believe that people won't object to losing another 4.95% off their paycheque? If so, you're living in la-la land. There is no way Canadians will say, increase CPP by 5% and cut EI by a couple percent. People are already too strapped for cash as it is.

And sorry, but $15/hour minimum wage? Way too high!

I don't know what it is in BC, but that's more than 50% higher than the new minimum wage brought in here in Alberta ($9.40/hour - $9.05 for alcohol servers). Given that most people don't consider a career that pays minimum wage a career, all that would do is to jack up inflation, which would stifle employment and hurt the very people you're seeking to help.

Thanks but no thanks to that!

[andyt]

People will object to anything that takes money off their check. But they're sure eager to get any govt benefits they are entitled to.

The cutting EI was based on an govt mandated RRSP - ie even more money taken off your check into a forced savings account. I suggested a higher min wage because the people at the bottom really can't afford to have more taken off their checks. But we're told that our savings rate is too low - this is a way to make it higher. Stops people from blowing all their money now, makes them keep some for a rainy day.

[Psudo]

Entitlements, where people are required to pay for their own protection out of their own pocket, act more as a detriment than a benefit to the poor. They have less now so that they can have something later, when they're already needy now. Inasmuch as it takes money to make money, you're forcing them to stay poor. The left ought to prefer welfare programs (aid paid for by the rich), and the right should prefer a negative tax rate (aid earned by work).