Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Well, I've seen this a few times and I'll just point out the obvious issue. For an individual to match this, they're saving 20% of their income. So yes, it's possible, but a very small percentage is going to make the sacrifices along the way necessary. It's not just 20% when times are good for them, it's 20% through thick and thin, and increasing along with their salary.
And let me say, I don't begrudge teachers (or other public servants, or anyone else) their pensions. It's the deal they've signed up for. If people think teachers have such a sweet deal, go be a teacher! It gets tiresome to hear about how easy everyone else has it, how anyone can do anyone else's job and how other people get paid too much for whatever they do.
I think we (as a society/province/municipality, etc.) have a real issue with the DB pensions though. They're not affordable. With "us" covering that longevity risk for people and those people continuing to live longer it's extremely difficult. But again, I don't begrudge individual teachers for having that deal.
|
You hit the nail on the head. The reason everyone doesn’t have a similar pension to teachers is they are unwilling to save at the rate teachers do in good times and bad. Ignoring the matching component what % of people are even hitting 12.5% of their money post CPP.
Also if people want a teachers pension so badly why aren’t they advocating for CPP to be expanded to cover a greater portion of income? It’s forced savings, it’s employer matched, it runs on very similar actuarial rates.