May 2015 Provincial Election Thread v2

[Resolute 14]

I can't fault the unions for wishing to maintain their contracts as structured. But when those contracts come up....

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I can't fault the unions for wishing to maintain their contracts as structured. But when those contracts come up....

agreed. For example, the teacher's union relies on public good will to support their strikes. They have had plenty of good will in the past, show the public you understand the big picture.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

I agree with Locke that the biggest spending issue is public sector pensions. They need to be fixed and crawled back to an extent. We are paying out the ### for a lot of people who don't provide value anymore and seem to be living longer lives.

Okay, well yes and no.

The pensions as they are structured right now are unsustainable and pretty much everyone knows it but its been passed around like a political hand grenade, which is understandable.

Now, I'm not advocating that we slash, burn and destroy public pensions entirely, that isnt feasible either economically, socially or politically, but they have to be scaled back.

That would be a little extreme even for Commissar Notley of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Alberta. We dont want retirees waiting in lines for bread, vodka and toilet paper.

However, it is widely understood that paying people to not work for you is economically unfeasible. The Edmonton Oilers and Vancouver Canucks havent figured this out yet but the odd manufacturing conglomerate and the Automotive companies in between regularly scheduled insolvencies eventually managed to put that little piece of economic theory to a few fairly resoundingly successful tests.

And before I'm challenged with the 'oh yeah, but those businesses got Government bailouts!!"

So does the public sector. Every year. Every time they run a deficit and the Government just pays the tab.

When they receive an operating budget and a huge swath of that budget goes into a non-operating expense (pensions) that is effectively paying 'debt.'

The thing is, at the moment, Public Service Pensions are the biggest and among the most successful Ponzi schemes around.

Where Ponzi schemes normally fail is when they reach critical mass and they just cant get scam any more suckers out of their money, unfortunately in this instance the suckers are built into the structure of the scheme in the form of Alberta Tax-Payers in general. And our barriers for exit for walking away are very high.

Now again, to be clear, we arent talking a 'fall of the Soviet Union' type of clearing out of pension accounts and throwing our pensioners out into the streets. Those pensions are still important but they have to be based on economic reality.

And finally, this isnt an 'Us vs. Them.' 'Public vs. Private!'

This isnt a game and we arent on separate teams, we all live here together, we have to to do this together. Public service employees arent useless drunken morons like Springfield's Naval Reserves, they operate essential services and deserve respect but those pensions are just way outside of any kind of economic reality.

[heep223]

No job should be "protected". It's ludicrous.

[MelBridgeman]

My Dad taught for 30 years, retired at 55 and has now collected over half a million dollars from the public purse the last 15 years. Thank you everyone! He was smart with his cash too, got lucky in tech stocks in the 90's - so hasn't really spent any of it (it's all mine now!!!!) - thanks everyone again especially the unions!

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

My Dad taught for 30 years, retired at 55 and has now collected over half a million dollars from the public purse the last 15 years. Thank you everyone! Has was smart with his cash too, got lucky in tech stocks in the 90's - so hasn't really spent any of it (it's all mine now!!!!) - thanks everyone again especially the unions!

I guarantee you he has collected way over $500,000. A teacher's pension is 70% of the average of their last five years of salary, adjusted up for inflation. A teacher right now in their last five years of work are making $100,000. Let's go really low on our estimate and say your dad has been making $60,000 per year since retiring, though (even thought it's likely $70k/year). That's $900,000, which is an absolutely incredible guaranteed pension after a relatively short career.

My grandma was a teacher. She's 95 right now. She retired in her 50s as well. In today's dollars, she's collected about $2,400,000 if we said she's been making $60k per year. If we want to call it $70k per year, she's made closer to $3,000,000.

I don't see those pension amount as sustainable given the young age at which you can start collecting them and how long people live.

At the end of the day, if employees are contributing far less than they are drawing, the pensions are unsustainable and unfair to taxpayers.

[VladtheImpaler]

Locke, you should stop posting here and arguing with the fellow travelers. It's like Kramer when he was dominating the dojo...

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, well yes and no.

The pensions as they are structured right now are unsustainable and pretty much everyone knows it but its been passed around like a political hand grenade, which is understandable.

Yeah, this is an opinion I can respect. I think there are some other more creative options you could give public sector employees that would offset reducing their pensions as well. A lot of posters on here have talked about how if you invest properly you don't really need a pension, but investments can carry some higher risks for public servants, especially if they're investing in companies or stocks that could bring conflict of interest charges against them. Maybe there's a way to tweak the language in CBAs to reduce the risk/liability for those kinds of issues.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I guarantee you he has collected way over $500,000. A teacher's pension is 70% of the average of their last five years of salary, adjusted up for inflation.

No it's not.

http://www.atrf.com/teacher/about-yo...ension-formula

[BigNumbers]

Why let something petty - like facts - get in the way of another patented Sliver Trolljob tm

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I know, I was just going straight from the last budget with the $60.00 per barrel estimate.

so we're probably looking at close to 8to 10 bil

It'll be way more. We could borrow $15b+ this year.

They projected 6 in operations, another 6 in capital. Less the last of the contingency reserve and they'd be down 9. And there could be be a $6b+ hole in the budget on top of that.

Add in 3b in union wage hikes that are already negotiated and a few new capital projects, and 2016 will flirt with a $20b bill for our kids.

[CaptainCrunch]

So if this continues for the next 4 years, we could have a 80 billion dollar hole.

How is it that we are going to have a deficit that's a bit more then twice the size of Ontario's

I think their deficit was about $8 billion last year.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So if this continues for the next 4 years, we could have a 80 billion dollar hole.

How is it that we are going to have a deficit that's a bit more then twice the size of Ontario's

No attempt at controlling spending.

[CaptainCrunch]

Stelmach and Redford and this new government have completely screwed us.

I'm interested in seeing what the new budget holds, but there's going to have to be some major cuts to how this government spends on its day to day operations.

[chemgear]

Yeah that extra $3 billion in taxes on us for carbon/climate change. It's for bupkis - well, actually it's just more to funnel into those cushy union jobs.


http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/col...he-finger-back

Tuesday’s flat rejection of Energy East by 82 Montreal-area municipalities means Alberta is now under virtual economic blockade.

And it’s a funny thing — the objectors never seem to mention Alberta’s noble climate change policy, the one that was supposed to soften opposition to pipelines.

Let us sincerely hope Notley’s climate-change plan helps the climate. Because it sure isn’t helping Alberta.

If Albertans end up paying the $3-billion carbon tax even while low oil prices are strangling the economy, and there’s still no give from other national players, this government is doomed.

There’s never any pushback from Notley — just, “OK, we’ll work it out somehow.”

[Regorium]

To be fair, I truly believe Notley had the best intentions in mind. She worked with the other premiers and they probably said "look, if you can get some climate strategy worked out, we'll work on our constituents and get this done."

Notley held up her end of the bargain, and the other premiers stabbed her in the back.

It doesn't matter what age you are when you finally lose that naivete, but I think it will happen quickly with her after what happened. She's a smart woman. I feel bad because she truly wanted to compromise and do something good for all of Canada, but the other premiers took advantage and made her look weak and foolish.

We'll see how she responds.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

No it's not.

http://www.atrf.com/teacher/about-yo...ension-formula

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

Why let something petty - like facts - get in the way of another patented Sliver Trolljob tm

I know you didn't read his link or calculate the pension amount because I am exactly correct. The specific wording from this site is as follows:

...teachers at age 65 with 35 years of service can expect a pension of 70 per cent of their pre-retirement income.

That's quoted word for word directly from the Alberta Teachers' Pension Plan site and off a PDF copy of their brochure. Their pre-retirement income is based on their highest earning five consecutive years.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So if this continues for the next 4 years, we could have a 80 billion dollar hole.

How is it that we are going to have a deficit that's a bit more then twice the size of Ontario's

I think their deficit was about $8 billion last year.

Part of it is fun with accounting.

The deficit they report will not include capital spending - here or Ontario. http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/bl...e-the-deficits

Here's a fact to warm your boots. Notley will likely rack up more debt for our tiny province than Trudeau will for the whole country, including Alberta

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Regorium

To be fair, I truly believe Notley had the best intentions in mind. She worked with the other premiers and they probably said "look, if you can get some climate strategy worked out, we'll work on our constituents and get this done."

Notley held up her end of the bargain, and the other premiers stabbed her in the back.

It doesn't matter what age you are when you finally lose that naivete, but I think it will happen quickly with her after what happened. She's a smart woman. I feel bad because she truly wanted to compromise and do something good for all of Canada, but the other premiers took advantage and made her look weak and foolish.

We'll see how she responds.

I dont doubt that in most of what she does, but you know what they say about the road to hell...

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, this is an opinion I can respect. I think there are some other more creative options you could give public sector employees that would offset reducing their pensions as well. A lot of posters on here have talked about how if you invest properly you don't really need a pension, but investments can carry some higher risks for public servants, especially if they're investing in companies or stocks that could bring conflict of interest charges against them. Maybe there's a way to tweak the language in CBAs to reduce the risk/liability for those kinds of issues.

And thats all it comes down to. The system cant last the way it currently operates which means that at the moment these guys are lining up to get screwed, it makes much more sense to take an honest and critical view of the system and adapt it so that its more sustainable.

Perhaps less lucrative, but at this point its about getting part of something as opposed to just riding it out until the whole thing goes down because at that point yeah, we are talking "fall of the Soviet Union: All of your pension cash is gone" and they wind up getting all of nothing.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I know you didn't read his link or calculate the pension amount because I am exactly correct. The specific wording from this site is as follows:

...teachers at age 65 with 35 years of service can expect a pension of 70 per cent of their pre-retirement income.

That's quoted word for word directly from the Alberta Teachers' Pension Plan site and off a PDF copy of their brochure. Their pre-retirement income is based on their highest earning five consecutive years.

The actual numbers are a bit lower.

A teacher retiring today at the top of the pay scale would have a five-year average annual salary of about $95,000. Their pension with 35 years of pensionable service is $50,298.87 a year. That's 52.9% of their pre-retirement income. With just 30 years of pensionable service it's $43,113.12, which is 45.4% of pre-retirement income.

Perhaps once you take into account that a teacher making $95,000 a year pays about $13,000 into the fund, that takes their taxable salary down to $82,000. That gets the numbers a little closer to 70%, I suppose.