Finance ministers reach deal to expand Canada Pension Plan - Page 7 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Resolute 14 · 06-22-2016, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

haha seriously?

Canada is built on a foundation of those being better off subsidizing those who aren't.

More like tax the rich to barely help fund the poor.

It is sad to see the old poor = lazy idea rear its ugly head.

Sorry Flip, but in this case, it is tax everyone, not just the rich.

Also, there are a lot of people that don't understand basic finances that aren't also poor. A lot of that falls to our misguided education system, but yes, noting that we are paying for the lazy is also valid.

Slava · 06-22-2016, 01:03 PM

I just don't get the people saying that this is a tax. The money goes into CPP and not general revenue. Its as though your company is putting the money into a DB pension for you, except that here the company is the CPP.

Flash Walken · 06-22-2016, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

I just don't get the people saying that this is a tax. The money goes into CPP and not general revenue. Its as though your company is putting the money into a DB pension for you, except that here the company is the CPP.

It's easier to demonize if you call it a tax. As we all know in western society, taxes are bad.

nik- · 06-22-2016, 01:27 PM

Money deducted off of your check, regardless of your choice, to fund a social net program.

Calling it a tax isn't far off, I mean come on now.

Flash Walken · 06-22-2016, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

Money deducted off of your check, regardless of your choice, to fund a social net program.

Calling it a tax isn't far off, I mean come on now.

Well it's also being paid by companies, so should we call it a royalty because that is also not far off?

We only get to use incorrect terminology when it's politically expedient?

Where is Corsi to defend this usurpation of the word Taxes?

nik- · 06-22-2016, 01:31 PM

Do companies not pay taxes? I'm not sure what you're driving at there.

It's as much a tax as any other income tax imo. It's just funding something else in the government stable.

GGG · 06-22-2016, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

Money deducted off of your check, regardless of your choice, to fund a social net program.

Calling it a tax isn't far off, I mean come on now.

A tax implies a re-distribution. It the case of CPP your payout is entirely based on what you paid in with very little redistribution.

nik- · 06-22-2016, 01:36 PM

Is it? Because my contribution is doubling, and my max payout isn't.

Sounds like a redistribution to me.

GGG · 06-22-2016, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

Is it? Because my contribution is doubling, and my max payout isn't.

Sounds like a redistribution to me.

Could you link all the details of the plan. I think the big risk here and what would make it a tax is that the increased payout is given to people who havnet paid the increased premiums.

However the numbers people throw around here are based on the comparison of todays rate and cap vs a inflated and increased future cap. So a portion of the rate doubling would have occurred with the inflationary increases over time therefore the payout in todays dollars would not change for that portion of the increase.

nik- · 06-22-2016, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Under the new deal, the upper earnings limit would rise to $82,700 by 2025. The current CPP deal is meant to replace 25 per cent of earnings up to the ceiling, while the new plan would aim to replace one third of income up to the new, higher ceiling.

So yes, the increase in total payout will be equivalent to the new contribution if you're above the old cap. Everyone below that gets the new payout with much less of an increase in contribution.

So yeah, it's a redistribution.

GGG · 06-22-2016, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

So yes, the increase in total payout will be equivalent to the new contribution if you're above the old cap. Everyone below that gets the new payout with much less of an increase in contribution.

So yeah, it's a redistribution.

How do you get that from those numbers? It does not discuss the implementation of the new benefits at all.

Cecil Terwilliger · 06-22-2016, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Sorry Flip, but in this case, it is tax everyone, not just the rich.

Also, there are a lot of people that don't understand basic finances that aren't also poor. A lot of that falls to our misguided education system, but yes, noting that we are paying for the lazy is also valid.

Oh snap he called me flip! Sick burn using my old username.

Also, I'm not sure what your point is. CPP is one of the key pillars of our social safety net, along with free health care. It is absurd to suggest that it shouldn't exist because it helps the irresponsible.

CPP is not enough to live off of. It barely helps the irresponsible. Instead of being destitute they are simply poor. Barely a difference.

nik- · 06-22-2016, 01:50 PM

Yeah I guess you only get the double payout if you make up to the cap. I'd have to see how all the breakdowns happen.

At the core though, I disagree that a tax implies redistribution though. It's money taken to fund a program, to me that's a tax.

nik- · 06-22-2016, 01:52 PM

I would like to clarify though, I like that the CPP is here. However I think this increase is greatly excessive.

Flash Walken · 06-22-2016, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

I would like to clarify though, I like that the CPP is here. However I think this increase is greatly excessive.

WHY!?

WHY do you think it is excessive?

nik- · 06-22-2016, 02:01 PM

Because the fund is solvent for 75 years, we'll be clearing the biggest retirement hurdle in about 20 and doubling the cost to a contributer is too much.

I've said this already.

Red · 06-22-2016, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

Because the fund is solvent for 75 years, we'll be clearing the biggest retirement hurdle in about 20 and doubling the cost to a contributer is too much.

I've said this already.

What do you mean?

nik- · 06-22-2016, 02:10 PM

The boomers are going to be the biggest drain on CPP and then demographics flatten out.

Red · 06-22-2016, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

The boomers are going to be the biggest drain on CPP and then demographics flatten out.

Not trying to pick a bone here, but how do you figure that the boomers will be the biggest drain?

Or is this another one of those "blame it on the boomers" excuses?

Logic suggests that the millennials will need more help because they are not saving anything and will be in debt till death. No?

Resolute 14 · 06-22-2016, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Oh snap he called me flip! Sick burn using my old username.

Don't flatter yourself. I simply call you Flip because you've gone through so many user names that its easier just to call you by what you are best known as.

Quote:

Also, I'm not sure what your point is. CPP is one of the key pillars of our social safety net, along with free health care. It is absurd to suggest that it shouldn't exist because it helps the irresponsible.

Where did I suggest it should not exist? Please keep your strawmen to yourself.

Quote:

CPP is not enough to live off of. It barely helps the irresponsible. Instead of being destitute they are simply poor. Barely a difference.

Except that responsible people are still being forced to pay for the irresponsible as well as those who legitimately require support.