Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
The confusion is sown by the UCP because they are pursuing this “firewall” idea. The reality is they’ve been told that they’re not getting half the money. The end result is under half of what they wanted. Trevor Tombe did these calculations and came to this conclusion a year ago, so it’s not really a new piece of information for the government.
ETA: the reason the numbers are so different is the Chief Actuary takes the position that the formula has to apply if all provinces wanted to leave the plan at the same time. Therefore, you can’t have provinces with negative values, which is what the outcome of the LifeWorks calculations would have.
|
The methodology for leaving the plan is in the CPP act. I haven’t read it but my guess is the calculated number is quite high and that’s why it wasn’t released. If it was lower why wouldn’t they have released it?
Not sure why people have issues around Alberta pointing out that they are getting taken advantage of under the current setup. Also don’t understand what the big uproar is around managing our own pension. Quebec does it, what’s the difference?
If the concern is derisking the investments you could literally invest in the same portfolio as the CPP currently does. I’m sure the overhead to manage it locally would be less that the CPP. That’s just money being left on the table. I’m guessing just by younger and more affluent demographic that Albertans are one of the larger contributers and not one of the larger consumers. That misbalance would also be addressed.