Quote:
Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 29 2004, 08:29 AM
Flame is right, because CPP is based on a pyramid scheme, it is doomed to collapse. At some point the top is going to get too heavy, too much of a burden, for the workers. The fact that the average age is growing by leaps and bounds is only going to compond this failure. I mean, a lot of these 65 year olds will live to be a century now with the medical technology we have. Unless they increase the age of when you can receive, making you work and therefore pay in longer, there's going to be big problems.
Making the younger crowd pay in more, is HARDLY a fix in my eyes. Sure it may have relieved the strain and helped save the system, but we're still not getting what we pay into it this way, we are just subsidizing others costs.
And 9.9 is a GROSS amount to pay. Besides, investing that 9.9 yourself would yield you far larger returns. I'm sure if you could invest even 6.0 of that you could make more for your retirement than the gov could and still have a cool 3.9 for spending.
It's a tax is all it is really. Though at least we can take solace in the fact that we are helping the older generation. I guess the fact that we agree with a certain level of 'social responsibilty' is one of the reasons why many of us live in Canada, though there are lots of debates recently about changing this. (Health care, etc.)
|
Actually, its logical to assume the boomers will die and the bubble of their demand on the system will eventually pass.
It's an issue of whether or not sufficient adjustments to CPP have been made to accomodate the bubble. Thirty to fifty years from now, the issue of CPP sustainability might be well in the rear-view mirror.
If I recall, there is some consideration being given to raising retirement age to 70 as one example.
The bigger challenge of the boomer bubble will be on the healthcare system.
Demographically, the USA and Canada are probably in a better position to meet the challenges of the welfare state than say, Europe. Canada's population will continue to increase through the next 50 years via our immigration policies. European populations are set to flatten and decline just as demands on their welfare systems will begin to accelerate.
I found this just surfing the issue. The reference to emerging third world economies looking at establishing welfare nets as their economies begin to generate surpluses is interesting and again, goes to philosophy and whether you agree with one argument or the other.
http://www.cwru.edu/pubaff/univcomm/authors/welfare.htm
It is not that easy, the key word is that the contributions are compulsory. What you put in has nothing to do with what you will get out of it when you retire.
I actually said that earlier, the highest contributors probably subsidize, to some extent, the lowest. In OAS, the wealthy definitely subsidize the poorest.
If you took a survey of Canadians, you would find most support that concept to some extent. What they don't like is waste in the system or people receiving benefits who don't need them.
Regarding the rest of your posts, it seems to me this is more of a philosophical argument versus one that can be demonstrated factually one way or the other.
Like a lot of Canadians, I'm kind of indifferent on the topic of CPP, neither planning for it nor really factoring it into the picture of retirement. So I'm not here to defend the principle behind it.
Cowperson