Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I honk the Toombes numbers are fairly credible and appear to be in line with all the other work done on the issue in the 2000s
It amounts to a 14% reduction in premiums or on $7500 in contributions or $1050 per year per max CPP payer. That’s a meaningful amount of money but I think it Carries a significant amount of risk. One of the assumptions is that Alberta keeps growing the way it does and maintains that young in migration from the rest of Canada. Should that change the benefit disappears.
And when you think of things that could stop that the likely one is the collapse of oil due to technological change. If that happens it hurts tax base, real estate, jobs and if we have an APP, pensions. Enough of my life is tied into the price of oil. Having a defined benefit CPP backed by more than just Alberta at a higher cost seems like prudent risk management.
This Gambit currently costs Quebec more than the rest of Canada.
The other problem is that Albertans have shown an utter failure at planning and saving. In the choice between a PST and just living off of oil revenues we choose oil revenues every time and fail to save. Given the choice between benefit decreases versus increased “taxation” we will choose cuts. If given the choice I would pay the 14% premium to stay with the CPP
|
I think this is a very reasonable way of looking at it. CPP really has been costing us more, but I think it's worth it. I'd call it the "adults in charge" premium.