04-25-2019, 12:26 PM
|
#41
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Yen Man
This. I'm not talking about high earners. I'm talking about a normal employee like an AP admin or a data entry clerk.
If anything, with how long we're living, retirement age should be at 70 rather than 65. A guy retiring at 55 would be retired 15 years earlier than most people in the private sector. To me, that just seems nuts.
|
It is nuts that most private sector employees are having to work longer and longer before they retire but that has very little to do with what public sector employees are getting for a pension.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-25-2019, 12:31 PM
|
#42
|
Posted the 6 millionth post!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_eoj
Why don't you prove your case instead of putting the burden on others? Your proposition doesn't make any sense.
Don't you claim to own and operate a business?
|
I'm speaking hypotheticals. There are some saying the math scenarios will prove otherwise, and I'd like those to be shown.
On a related note, here's a fun article that relates to benefits of retiring earlier - you might have a longer lifespan by doing so:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/u...-wellness.html
All things considered, if you earn the same amount of pension at 55 versus 65, your probably are more likely to be more burned out and have physical challenges in your retirement by working longer. So perhaps there is an extra latent cost to the health care system, assuming the model holds, if you retire later in life?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-25-2019, 12:41 PM
|
#43
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
|
Well, something's not working if they're saying the pension fund isn't sustainable at it's current rate. So you either get people to contribute more to the fund while they are working, or pull out less when they are not.
I guess in my simplistic view, the fact that your retirement years can outpace your working years while still being paid a working wage salary during the pension years inherently tells me it isn't sustainable, unless the pension fund has made some crazy good investments over the years that has somehow offset the fact that people are drawing more out of the fund than putting in. (sorry for the crazy long run on sentence)
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to The Yen Man For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-25-2019, 12:42 PM
|
#44
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Chahal - gets three other Councillors to sign on to his proposal
Farkas - hey, this sounds like something that would get me more media exposure...
So happy that no one ever wants to work with my Councillor. No way to know what goes on behind the scenes, but it really seems like as soon as Farkas gets wind of one of his colleagues working on a motion that would play to his base he rushes to the press with a motion of his own.
|
|
|
04-25-2019, 12:45 PM
|
#45
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Yen Man
Well, something's not working if they're saying the pension fund isn't sustainable at it's current rate. So you either get people to contribute more to the fund while they are working, or pull out less when they are not.
I guess in my simplistic view, the fact that your retirement years can outpace your working years while still being paid a working wage salary during the pension years inherently tells me it isn't sustainable, unless the pension fund has made some crazy good investments over the years that has somehow offset the fact that people are drawing more out of the fund than putting in. (sorry for the crazy long run on sentence)
|
It's this. There are three levers you can use to rectify these situations. You can have more money contributed, which is either by the city or the employee in this case. You could have people work longer (which really has them contribute more money and draw the pension from that fund for a shorter period of time). Or you can get a better return. The third option there is not something that you can plan to "just do". So you're looking at one of the first two. That's it.
|
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-25-2019, 12:45 PM
|
#46
|
Posted the 6 millionth post!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Yen Man
Well, something's not working if they're saying the pension fund isn't sustainable at it's current rate. So you either get people to contribute more to the fund while they are working, or pull out less when they are not.
I guess in my simplistic view, the fact that your retirement years can outpace your working years while still being paid a working wage salary during the pension years inherently tells me it isn't sustainable, unless the pension fund has made some crazy good investments over the years that has somehow offset the fact that people are drawing more out of the fund than putting in. (sorry for the crazy long run on sentence)
|
I understand the sentiment. I do believe pensions need to be rolled back to market conditions. But changing the retirement age is a seperate issue to me. As I said, grandfathering in pension reforms is probably the best way to go, less contributions by employee and employer over time, and ensuring the employees have resources to be more prudent with their own personal retirement savings mechanisms (e.g. education on RRSP's, asset portfolios, etc.)
|
|
|
04-25-2019, 12:47 PM
|
#47
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
|
Farkas is such an attention-seeker and grandstander. He's in politics solely to pat himself on the back. People should learn from that Simpsons episode and just ignore him, he hates that.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-25-2019, 12:48 PM
|
#48
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
I understand the sentiment. I do believe pensions need to be rolled back to market conditions. But changing the retirement age is a seperate issue to me. As I said, grandfathering in pension reforms is probably the best way to go, less contributions by employee and employer over time, and ensuring the employees have resources to be more prudent with their own personal retirement savings mechanisms (e.g. education on RRSP's, asset portfolios, etc.)
|
It's not necessarily less contributions though. It's that the benefit is not guaranteed. So the city could effectively say "we're not cutting the contributions or reducing that in any way. It's just that you get the results of that, and not a guaranteed income for the rest of your life."
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-25-2019, 01:16 PM
|
#49
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
It's not necessarily less contributions though. It's that the benefit is not guaranteed. So the city could effectively say "we're not cutting the contributions or reducing that in any way. It's just that you get the results of that, and not a guaranteed income for the rest of your life."
|
Exactly. Right now Calgary taxpayers have a huge bet that medical science won't extend people's lives. I'm not sure that's a bet I want to make.
Keep the generous pension contributions, but switch to a DC plan. Each employee gets the contributions and growth related to their own account. Want to retire at 55 with what's there, great. Still engaged and productive, keep working and piling up more money on your personal fund.
One of the problems with a DB is that it gives a huge incentive for people to retire young, when that may not be the best thing for them or society. It's not like 55 is way over the hill now, especially for a knowledge worker.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-26-2019, 08:43 AM
|
#50
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: North America
|
|
|
|
04-26-2019, 09:01 AM
|
#51
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toledo OH
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
|
The 'expert' citizens committee that Nenshi speaks so highly about is a sham. They have the committee work and if they don't like the outcome they stonewall them. This coming from the chair of said citizens commission:
Quote:
Calgary’s elected officials arguably enjoy the best municipal overall employment benefits package in the country. The pension, for example, is very rich, and most of the contributions are paid by taxpayers.
For perhaps the first time in the history of citizen compensation recommendations in Calgary, we advised an across-the-board cut to total compensation.
|
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...tion-dont-work
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-26-2019, 09:07 AM
|
#52
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
|
Nenshi has definitely lost a lot of the shine for me in the last year or two since he won the election. Olympic bid was awful, doing 4 major capital projects in a time of massively increasing property taxes, 14 new communities that we don't need. Just poor decision making all around.
Whoever runs against him will have my vote next time, unless it's Farkas because he's a total blowhard.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-26-2019, 09:08 AM
|
#53
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
|
Kind of hypocritical that Nenshi of all people wants to chastise others for showboating.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to The Yen Man For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-26-2019, 09:09 AM
|
#54
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
The 'expert' citizens committee that Nenshi speaks so highly about is a sham. They have the committee work and if they don't like the outcome they stonewall them. This coming from the chair of said citizens commission:
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...tion-dont-work
|
I'm probably insane, but I would sign up for that committee.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-26-2019, 09:38 AM
|
#55
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I'm probably insane, but I would sign up for that committee.
|
I too like money for nothing. I really should get into Government.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
04-26-2019, 09:45 AM
|
#56
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
|
"But it's a 10 to 1 return on investment!!" /s
|
|
|
04-26-2019, 10:14 AM
|
#57
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
I too like money for nothing. I really should get into Government.
|
Its voluntary, so not quite money for nothing!
|
|
|
04-26-2019, 10:43 AM
|
#58
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
|
Is this the same citizens committee that recommended ending the "transition allowance"? And then council voted to keep the "transition allowance"? That committee?
Yeah, we should wait for what they say and then just do whatever we want anyway.
|
|
|
04-26-2019, 10:54 AM
|
#59
|
Norm!
|
I voted for Nenshi the first election, I was really hesitant to vote for him again the second time but I got to the booth and looked at the other candidates and plugged my nose and voted for him, but hoped he'd be beaten.
I think that he's kind of lost touch with things, and he's become really caustic and almost self entitled.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:29 PM.
|
|