Councillors take aim at city pensions

[iggy_oi]

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.

[Ozy_Flame]

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 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)

[InglewoodFan]

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.

[Slava]

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.

[Ozy_Flame]

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.)

[Muta]

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.

[Slava]

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."

[bizaro86]

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.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1121766443006214146

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1121766443006214146

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:

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

[Regorium]

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 Yen Man]

Kind of hypocritical that Nenshi of all people wants to chastise others for showboating.

[Slava]

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.

[Locke]

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.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1121766443006214146

"But it's a 10 to 1 return on investment!!" /s

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Locke

I too like money for nothing. I really should get into Government.

Its voluntary, so not quite money for nothing!

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1121766443006214146

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.

[CaptainCrunch]

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.