April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[MoneyGuy]

I prefer to have these things like CPP done nation wide as I think they're more effective. It would be less efficient if every province had its own plan. Similarly, I disagree strongly with the Alberta stand on having provincial securities regulators and have told my MLA this even though he's a friend and I support him, but not on this issue.

[Slava]

I don't really want to wade into the CPP debate, about whether people should opt out. It's not enough for people to retire on by itself, but at the same allowing people to opt out means people aren't protected from themselves. I know most people think the government doesn't know what's best for them (and I largely agree). I could give numerous examples of people using pension money to do incredibly stupid things, as soon as they have a chance. I'm sure that moneyguy or any other financial advisor could do the same. Trust me when I say that for many people the reason they have pension money is because they can't access it all. It has nothing to do with the rate of return, or cheap management fees. Its locked away and people can't spend it.

As for the proposed APP and firewall, I am against it for a number of reasons. Here are some facts and figures from the PCs on why they haven't pursued this, and while I don't know if it's accurate, the numbers are staggering.

http://www.votepc.ca/admin/contentx/...d=2496&r=10187

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Again I'm getting this stuff from the CPP and CPPIB websites, but apparently assets held in the CPP fund are by themselves insufficient to pay for all future benefits accrued to date but sufficient to prevent contributions from rising any further and that CPP's chief actuary showed that this type of funding method is "robust and appropriate" given reasonable assumptions about future conditions.

So again, with proper management, the system seems to be in a strong position going forward. CPP is according the various reports published on the CPP and CPPIB websites solvent until 2075 at least. Unlike social security in US America, we've actually managed our fund very well (SS projected to be broke by around 2038)

Much of it has to do with the changes made by the Liberals in the 90s. Think cuts and reforms. Something the US refuses to do.

Either way, the baby boomers are an obvious concern, but I'm not really worried about CPP. They've been running it quite well.

Still like the idea of a provincial pension plan though.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Alberta's share of the assets of the CPP Investment Fund would be approximately $18 billion. Its liabilities would be $104billion.. Bottom Line: Alberta assumes an unfunded pension liability that, at the end of 2009, would be approximately net $104 billion.

From the link Slava gave. If Alberta wanted to have its own pension plan it should have started long ago (Quebec started theirs in 1966). There's simply no value there whatsoever in starting one now, it seems like a big loser to me. Especially when there isn't a big issue with CPP to begin with.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

A question about QPPs and other provincial pensions. I assume that you can still be entitled to your pension even if you live outside the original province when you become eligible.

Because if that's not the case and you have to live in Quebec to receive your QPP that would be awful.

[Jacks]

Any analysis of an APP coming from votepc.ca should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Senator Clay Davis]

No, you can receive QPP benefits (my parents plan on claiming when 65) if you are no longer a resident. Since people like to retire in warm places, it would seem unfair to tie people to the province to receive benefits.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Any analysis of an APP coming from votepc.ca should be taken with a grain of salt.

Ya, I have no idea about their accuracy. I just put them up because the numbers were that large. I don't know how it would work if we were to try to leave the CPP, but I'm not sure the Wildrose actually knows either.

It just seems like a stupid thing to even bring up at this point though. I mean that mostly in the political strategy way...what would possess you to come out with this issue at this stage of the election?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

You're trumpeting your party's platform

The party policy is to "Withdraw from the CPP and create an Alberta Pension Plan (APP)"

I don't think I've "trumpeted" that. I've said, its worthy of discussion. I've suggested a blended system might be better. I pointed to Saskatchewan as an example, rather than Quebec.

without regard for the facts. The CPP is sound for many decades, proven by actuarial analysis.

I also stated more than once that I was't well versed on the issue. My comments were simply based on things I've heard. For example; "one can't rely solely on CPP" or "many who CPP recipients also need to get OAS".
I also said I was interested in hearing from others.

This is what I hate about party politics.

What, that we have average "Joes" (or Janes) who come to web forums to discuss policy?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Baffling why the Wildrose would start bringing up the firewall stuff right now.

The party didn't bring this up. Robert Remington did.

Remington: Here comes the attack of the firewall Philistines

He's a columnist, free to his opinion. For those who don't like Braid or Bell and their favorably opines of the Wildrose, Remington is your antidote. Him and Staples.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

The party didn't bring this up. Robert Remington did.

Remington: Here comes the attack of the firewall Philistines

He's a columnist, free to his opinion. For those who don't like Braid or Bell and their favorably opines of the Wildrose, Remington is your antidote. Him and Staples.

Its not all him though, who did Smith comment to this week? She could've tried to diffuse it, but instead she said they would examine options.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its not all him though, who did Smith comment to this week? She could've tried to diffuse it, but instead she said they would examine options.

This is way media works.....

... someone gets a tidbit of info (or finds something)

... create story.

... get quotes to support story.

... other media then follow up with those named to get a response.


Giving a response isn't the same as "promoting" an issue.

[Senator Clay Davis]

So with all this talk about seemingly more "protectionism" and "firewalls" by the Wildrose, it really leads me to believe this: I think this province is a whole lot closer to seperating from Canada than Quebec is. I think Quebec can't even afford to seperate from Canada, whereas obviously Alberta probably could (at least until the oil runs out).

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So with all this talk about seemingly more "protectionism" and "firewalls" by the Wildrose, it really leads me to believe this: I think this province is a whole lot closer to seperating from Canada than Quebec is. I think Quebec can't even afford to seperate from Canada, whereas obviously Alberta probably could (at least until the oil runs out).

Given that many conservative arguments ultimately boil down to maximizing the money left in their pockets I would tend to agree this is the logical conclusion.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

This is way media works.....

... someone gets a tidbit of info (or finds something)

... create story.

... get quotes to support story.

... other media then follow up with those named to get a response.


Giving a response isn't the same as "promoting" an issue.

True enough. In any event its a bad idea. I do wish there were more debates though. These issues might have been brought up and dealt with already; as it is we have a new issue and we'll see the parties argue through the media.

[kn]

Wildrose obtained a letter sent from Alison Redford to the PC candidate and Minister for Seniors, George VanderBrurg, in Whitecourt-Ste. Anne in which Redford not only promises a new hospital for residents in Whitecourt, but also assures that this project will be bumped up on the Provincial Capital Plan for infrastructure. The letter is dated April 12, 2012. Perhaps even more shameful than the letter itself, VanderBurg has been handing it out like candy to local residents.

http://www.wildrose.ca/press-release...dollars-again/

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Wildrose suggesting someone else is buying votes is irony of the highest order of course

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So with all this talk about seemingly more "protectionism" and "firewalls" by the Wildrose, it really leads me to believe this: I think this province is a whole lot closer to seperating from Canada than Quebec is. I think Quebec can't even afford to seperate from Canada, whereas obviously Alberta probably could (at least until the oil runs out).

No one is talking about a firewall. It is simply one idea, that happened to be part of the firewall letter.

Having a province retain (or regain) its areas of jurisdiction isn't a radical concept.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The Wildrose suggesting someone else is buying votes is irony of the highest order of course

The distinction is; Wildrose energy dividends only are paid when and if there is a surplus, in the case noted above the governing party is saying they will adjust the current budget (the one they insisted on passing) in order to appease this MLA. He is taking it a step further and using it as campaign literature.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The Wildrose suggesting someone else is buying votes is irony of the highest order of course

In this case, the PCs are apparently attempting to bribe the residents of this riding into voting for them, making a promise with direct and singular benefit to the riding if they do so. I would be curious to know if the Wildrose has made a similar promise in any riding.

[1stLand]

Originally Posted by First Lady

No one is talking about a firewall. It is simply one idea, that happened to be part of the firewall letter.

Having a province retain (or regain) its areas of jurisdiction isn't a radical concept.



The distinction is; Wildrose energy dividends only are paid when and if there is a surplus, in the case noted above the governing party is saying they will adjust the current budget (the one they insisted on passing) in order to appease this MLA. He is taking it a step further and using it as campaign literature.

I want a surplus cheque.

The PC chatter on twitter is laughable.
They are trying create / drum up controversy towards the Wildrose.

Definitely a good sign they are panicking.