Alberta Politics Thread v2

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This in no way prevents any government from negotiating changes to the pension plan during collective bargaining.

Good luck getting any union to give back benefits they already have.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

You really think they are going to give that up once they got it? New strike issue.

So you’re under the impression that the union would go on strike if the employer tried to negotiate the change but if the employer just took it away outside of bargaining they(the union) would just accept it and not make an issue of it during the next round of bargaining? No offence but I think that’s highly unlikely.

Originally Posted by Dion

Good luck getting any union to give back benefits they already have.

It happens more often than you’d think.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Slava

We all know what this is doing. It’s further entrenching the gold plated pensions for union employees, and making it so that reducing these benefits is much more difficult in the event that the NDP loses the election. Of course the consultation with the unions suggested that it would be best if they were included...what other result could be expected?

you're assuming everyone in a union gets a big fat gold plated pension.
not everyone in a union does, you know.

for example, non academic staff at post secondary institutions don't have a gold plated pension. it's a good pension that about 10% of their pay goes into every month. the average non union joe that invests 10% of his pay cheque is probably going to do just as well if not better when they retire.

glad you think all union employee are living high off the hog.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

you're assuming everyone in a union gets a big fat gold plated pension.
not everyone in a union does, you know.

for example, non academic staff at post secondary institutions don't have a gold plated pension. it's a good pension that about 10% of their pay goes into every month. the average non union joe that invests 10% of his pay cheque is probably going to do just as well if not better when they retire.

glad you think all union employee are living high off the hog.

Public sector employees in Alberta, who are generally Unionized, enjoy (compared to their private sector counterparts):

10% more pay for similar work
5 more personal days off per year
6 times less likely to experience job loss
10 times more likely to have defined benefit pension (ie: Gold Plated)
Retire 2 years earlier

That's just the facts, jack.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

you're assuming everyone in a union gets a big fat gold plated pension.
not everyone in a union does, you know.

for example, non academic staff at post secondary institutions don't have a gold plated pension. it's a good pension that about 10% of their pay goes into every month. the average non union joe that invests 10% of his pay cheque is probably going to do just as well if not better when they retire.

glad you think all union employee are living high off the hog.

Right, but let's be honest, those aren't the type of pensions that this is really about. There's a fight brewing in this area because there are some of these pensions where the benefits are expensive, we've seen deficits through the years which are in the billions of dollars, and of course the beneficiaries of those plans aren't inclined to see those benefits reduce.

These days it's commonplace to compare Calgary to the "next Detroit". While I tend to think that characterization isn't quite accurate, this is an area where it's certainly interesting. Public sector pensions caused a lot of issues for them!

I have zero issue with most of these roles having a pension plan, btw. I think those plans are socially and economically very good for society. What I do object to are the defined-benefit plans for public sector workers. Why should we (tax payers at large) guarantee someone a living for their entire lifetime? That's effectively what these are suggesting. And yeah, I'm off on a little rant here, but let me be clear...times have changed. Decades ago, an employee would work until age 65, retire and in a lot of cases pass away within about a decade. They worked say for 35-40 years in one organization and effectively paid their dues to get that extra decade or so in compensation and benefits. This isn't what you see today. Many of these plans offer early retirement provisions to begin at 55 or earlier. People might work for say 25-30 years in that role, and we live longer. In my profession I plan for people to live to 95 because the percentages are that high that we can't assume less! So consider this...you take a role in the public sector and work from 25-55, so 30 years. Our system as it stands pays you a salary in that role from age 25-95...how does that make sense? Why would anyone think they ought to be paid for 60 years, when they work for 30? How does that make sense in a world where we see these plans more infrequently because the deficits are incredibly difficult to manage and plan for?

tl;dr I'm generally opposed.

[Locke]

Public Sector Pensions are a matter of huge contention because they have proven to be a monumental burden on Government resources and not just Detroit but various other Jurisdictions around the world have had to curtail them as well.

The fact of the matter is that they're effectively a Ponzi scheme.

The people that are collecting them are receiving a pension at times for as long or even longer than their term of service.

How does that work? How can someone contribute 10% of their pay for 30 years to collect 70% of their pay for another 30?

It doesnt. Especially when the ratios of working:retired keep dropping.

I dont want to single out Teachers right now its just the only current figure I have off the top of my head but 25 years ago the ration of working teachers to retired teachers was something like 10:1, currently it sits at 2:1.

Thats not sustainable so they have to take cash to pay out these pensions from somewhere.

And the examples that we've seen in struggling jurisdictions indicate that these benefits are among the first to be slashed and burned when it all hits the fan leaving these people in dire straights.

So whats the prudent solution? A planned and thought-out re-structure to a sustainable model or just screwing the hell out of people when the money just simply ceases to exist? Because that time will come.

Either plan and be ready for it or roll the dice.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I can't be reading that right.

I mean that the idea is ridiculous, but because it's coming from the NDP, it's not surprising.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Slava

Right, but let's be honest, those aren't the type of pensions that this is really about. There's a fight brewing in this area because there are some of these pensions where the benefits are expensive, we've seen deficits through the years which are in the billions of dollars, and of course the beneficiaries of those plans aren't inclined to see those benefits reduce.

These days it's commonplace to compare Calgary to the "next Detroit". While I tend to think that characterization isn't quite accurate, this is an area where it's certainly interesting. Public sector pensions caused a lot of issues for them!

I have zero issue with most of these roles having a pension plan, btw. I think those plans are socially and economically very good for society. What I do object to are the defined-benefit plans for public sector workers. Why should we (tax payers at large) guarantee someone a living for their entire lifetime? That's effectively what these are suggesting. And yeah, I'm off on a little rant here, but let me be clear...times have changed. Decades ago, an employee would work until age 65, retire and in a lot of cases pass away within about a decade. They worked say for 35-40 years in one organization and effectively paid their dues to get that extra decade or so in compensation and benefits. This isn't what you see today. Many of these plans offer early retirement provisions to begin at 55 or earlier. People might work for say 25-30 years in that role, and we live longer. In my profession I plan for people to live to 95 because the percentages are that high that we can't assume less! So consider this...you take a role in the public sector and work from 25-55, so 30 years. Our system as it stands pays you a salary in that role from age 25-95...how does that make sense? Why would anyone think they ought to be paid for 60 years, when they work for 30? How does that make sense in a world where we see these plans more infrequently because the deficits are incredibly difficult to manage and plan for?

tl;dr I'm generally opposed.

good post.
I guess was only looking at it form someone in my position.

looking at my pension statement projections, I'm not getting any huge salary if I can make it to retirement age at my job. it will help, of course, but I'm sure not living off it.

sometimes I think I should be like my dad. he pissed away every cent he had, didn't pay taxes for years and then when the time came, was taken care of quite nicely on the taxpayer dime.

didn't seem fair, and still bugs me.

[transplant99]

Alberta’s fiscal policies are unsustainable.

The province has neither a revenue problem nor a spending problem; it has
a budget problem. An aging population will increase government spending
significantly, and tax revenue will fail to keep pace. A persistent dependence on
resource royalties adds to the uncertainty. And even if current plans to balance
early in the next decade succeed, fiscal pressures will mount and deficits balloon.
This paper examines long-term projections for resource royalties, federal
transfer payments, investment income, property taxes, tuition revenue, health
and education spending and debt service costs, and forecasts a deficit of
almost $40 billion by 2040.

https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-conte...ture-Tombe.pdf

[woob]

Time for Albertans to look themselves in the mirror and commit to making some changes, regardless of who's in power. Prentice had it right.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by woob

Time for Albertans to look themselves in the mirror and commit to making some changes, regardless of who's in power. Prentice had it right.

And we've had nothing but large tax increases for years. So we should all know where to start.

[PepsiFree]

Prentice ABSOLUTELY had it right, it was just a message poorly timed with all the bad spending and controversy from the PC government. Now we’re between a rock and a hard place, with neither party hinting at anything this province truly needs.

The best thing the NDP could’ve done when they knew their days were numbered was push through a PST. If you’re going to go down, go down putting something in place this province actually needs.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

What I do object to are the defined-benefit plans for public sector workers. Why should we (tax payers at large) guarantee someone a living for their entire lifetime? That's effectively what these are suggesting. And yeah, I'm off on a little rant here, but let me be clear...times have changed. Decades ago, an employee would work until age 65, retire and in a lot of cases pass away within about a decade. They worked say for 35-40 years in one organization and effectively paid their dues to get that extra decade or so in compensation and benefits. This isn't what you see today. Many of these plans offer early retirement provisions to begin at 55 or earlier. People might work for say 25-30 years in that role, and we live longer. In my profession I plan for people to live to 95 because the percentages are that high that we can't assume less! So consider this...you take a role in the public sector and work from 25-55, so 30 years. Our system as it stands pays you a salary in that role from age 25-95...how does that make sense? Why would anyone think they ought to be paid for 60 years, when they work for 30? How does that make sense in a world where we see these plans more infrequently because the deficits are incredibly difficult to manage and plan for?

Preach it. Canada is facing a demographic time bomb of an aging population, relentlessly rising health care costs, and public sector pension commitments. Nobody wants to talk about how a model set up in the 60s is unsustainable due to ever-increasing lifespans. Already, many older rural communities devote most of their budget to firefighter and police pensions. We're whistling past the graveyard when it comes to this stuff.

I don't begrudge people their pensions. But to cling to a system that is unsustainable just so you can get the most milk out of that cow before it dries up is unethical. As Locke says, we can either rein in these defined benefit pensions, or watch them drive right off a cliff - a disaster for both the public purse and the people who expect that money to be there in their old age.

Originally Posted by transplant99

https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-conte...ture-Tombe.pdf

This is example of how we deal with this stuff. Studies point out we need some combination of substantial public spending (and service) cuts and substantial tax increases to bridge the budget deficit. And what's the response of politicians? Can't do that. Too hard. So we kick the can down the road.

[woob]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This is example of how we deal with this stuff. Studies point out we need some combination of substantial public spending (and service) cuts and substantial tax increases to bridge the budget deficit. And what's the response of politicians? Can't do that. Too hard. So we kick the can down the road.

Definitely the response of politicians, but also the response of many Albertans too.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Prentice ABSOLUTELY had it right, it was just a message poorly timed with all the bad spending and controversy from the PC government. Now we’re between a rock and a hard place, with neither party hinting at anything this province truly needs.

The best thing the NDP could’ve done when they knew their days were numbered was push through a PST. If you’re going to go down, go down putting something in place this province actually needs.

Tombe concludes that the province doesn't need any more revenue...they need to stop/change spending.

If we are to believe this, as many do, then giving the incoming government even more money to spend seems like a very poor idea...no?

[CaptainYooh]

Great writing from Don Braid this morning. Bitter, angry and true. I love his columns. Always to the point, no lipstick on a pig, no dancing around and trying to avoid calling a spade a spade. Alberta is being screwed and there is a plan to it.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...a-little-early

There’s long been a view in Alberta that the Trudeau government is intentionally winding down Alberta’s oilsands, and ultimately the entire fossil fuel industry.

This belief has a basis in fact. Indeed, you could say it’s not a fake fact, but an honest-to-goodness fact fact.

P.S. Cue in Slava dismissing it as another crazy conspiracy theory against his beloved Liberals.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Tombe concludes that the province doesn't need any more revenue...they need to stop/change spending.

If we are to believe this, as many do, then giving the incoming government even more money to spend seems like a very poor idea...no?

That's not entirely true. Right from his paper:

"Albertans should soberly consider broader tax reform that includes saving more of the province’s resource revenues and introducing a provincial sales tax to make up the difference (and more)."

Can you explain what you mean when you say they don't need any more revenue?

[burn_this_city]

Jurisdictions in the US have already started hitting the pension wall, California being a good example. Some municipalities there have gone bankrupt and ended up stiffing the pensioners.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

That's not entirely true. Right from his paper:

"Albertans should soberly consider broader tax reform that includes saving more of the province’s resource revenues and introducing a provincial sales tax to make up the difference (and more)."

Can you explain what you mean when you say they don't need any more revenue?

From the very first line..

The province has neither a revenue problem nor a spending problem; it has a budget problem

In the paper he suggests lowering income tax while implemeting a sales tax instead...thats what tax reform means in this case. Both or niether.

Im fine with PST only IF all other taxes are lowered accordingly.

In the broad sense it doesnt matter a whole lot where the revenue comes from, just that they have what they need already. Governments of every stripe are loathe to give back tax money they already collect, and that is standard across the board. So unless they lower some income tax rates and some other "hidden" taxes, i say no way should they increase/add taxes even more than they have,

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Great writing from Don Braid this morning. Bitter, angry and true. I love his columns. Always to the point, no lipstick on a pig, no dancing around and trying to avoid calling a spade a spade. Alberta is being screwed and there is a plan to it.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...a-little-early



P.S. Cue in Slava dismissing it as another crazy conspiracy theory against his beloved Liberals.

How exactly does purchasing the Trans Mountain pipeline project for $4.5 billion fit into the federal government's conspiracy elaborate plan to screw Alberta?