MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Slava]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m sure it’s easy for you to say there’s nothing wrong with it when you’re not the one having to retire on it. There’s little to no guarantees with a DC plan.



Outsourcing or switching to a DC plan will increase the burden by leaving the plan with less employees paying into it, increasing the likelihood of insolvency.

Of course the DB is a better deal for the employee, and no one debates that. But there's a harsh reality that people will need to face sooner or later; "we" can't fund people for 75 years of living with them working for say 35-40 years. If we want people to start working at say 20 years of age, retire at 55-60 and live until their 95, something has to change. The answer isn't always "just pay people", because it's not sustainable.

Regardless though, the "living wage" doesn't have to mean a DB pension. And for a municipality or many other entities that's just going to cause a lot of problems down the road.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

Of course the DB is a better deal for the employee, and no one debates that. But there's a harsh reality that people will need to face sooner or later; "we" can't fund people for 75 years of living with them working for say 35-40 years. If we want people to start working at say 20 years of age, retire at 55-60 and live until their 95, something has to change. The answer isn't always "just pay people", because it's not sustainable.

Regardless though, the "living wage" doesn't have to mean a DB pension. And for a municipality or many other entities that's just going to cause a lot of problems down the road.

The example I like to give is teachers. In the early 1960s, there were 8 working teachers in Canada for every 1 retired teacher. When I was a kid in early 80s it was 5 to 1. By 2000 it was 3 to 1. Soon that number is projected to be 1.5 to 1. And the number of years teachers can expect to spend collecting pensions is now exceeding how long they spent teaching.

The math doesn’t work. We have utterly failed as a society to make the painful but necessary adjustments to a relentlessly aging population. It’s the same with health care costs and access. By the time we can no longer kick the can down the road, when it’s time to reconcile our expectations with our needs, it’s going to be ugly. Services being slashed deeper than anything we’ve seen in this country, and people getting 40 cents on the dollar on their pensions. That kind of ugly.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The example I like to give is teachers. In the early 1960s, there were 8 working teachers in Canada for every 1 retired teacher. When I was a kid in early 80s it was 5 to 1. By 2000 it was 3 to 1. Soon that number is projected to be 1.5 to 1. And the number of years teachers can expect to spend collecting pensions is now exceeding how long they spent teaching.

The math doesn’t work. We have utterly failed as a society to make the painful but necessary adjustments to a relentlessly aging population. It’s the same with health care costs and access. By the time we can no longer kick the can down the road, when it’s time to reconcile our expectations with our needs, it’s going to be ugly. Services being slashed deeper than anything we’ve seen in this country, and people getting 40 cents on the dollar on their pensions. That kind of ugly.

And, a complete unwillingness to acknowledge this. I know, it's because politicians need to face re-election every 4 years so they're not willing to make these kinds of long-term decisions that will make them unpopular. But it's absolutely coming.

[btimbit]

How would a politician even begin to approach that though? My pension isn't even that good but if someone was to begin negotiations to take it away then I'm starting with at least a 30% wage increase before I agree to anything

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The annoyance wasn’t about the money, it was about the mayor dedicating time and energy to an issue totally outside the remit of Calgary governance. Traditionally, voters want their elected municipal governments to focus on practical, local matters, and leave the ideological grandstanding to provincial and federal politicians.

Well since the annoyance isn't about the money, Calgary's previous council unanimously passed a resolution that Calgary would formally oppose Bill 21. Even Farkas voted yes on this. Behind Chahal, Gondek was one of the champions of the resolution. Again if we ignore the money, informed voters knew of her vocal opposition to the bill so there should be no annoyance that she has remained consistent.

"Look at this person here saying very publicly she opposed Bill 21 before being elected and now after being elected she still does. Why can't she be like every other politician and flip flop after being elected?!"

Also it's not like she came up with the most recent idea herself. It was in response to a call-to-arms made to all cities by Brampton's mayor. Ignoring Quebec cities all of the other major Canadian cities have had their council or the mayor denounce the bill (regardless of financially supporting the lawsuit). That includes all ten largest municipalities outside of the province of Quebec including Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Kitchener, London and Victoria and heck even Kitchener is helping to fund it.

While I have no reason to assume that her opposition to the bill is merely ideological grandstanding, even if it was, good. Even if we don't care about the individuals like Fatemeh Anvari who are being deeply impacted by the bill, it's easy clout. Just like showing support for Ukraine right now. Otherwise Calgary becomes the only major city outside of Quebec to not oppose the discriminatory bill and we start to really live up to the racist hicks of Canada stereotype.

I have no doubt if she refused to say anything or especially if she showed support for the bill she would be far more heavily criticized.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by btimbit

How would a politician even begin to approach that though? My pension isn't even that good but if someone was to begin negotiations to take it away then I'm starting with at least a 30% wage increase before I agree to anything

Well yeah, and that's the issue. No employee is every going to agree to a switch to DC from DB. And frankly, "we" can't compensate people for that switch...that's the crux of the matter.

Instead, people would have to accept a DC pension in place of the DB pension. That doesn't mean that their current years of service and such are gone from the current plan. It would mean that going forward, after a particular date, their pension changes and all new employees and new contributions begin to accrue there. It's been done many times in the private sector and eventually we have to do this in the public sector. There's no option, and it doesn't mean politicians hate teachers, or police officers or firefighters or whoever the public workers are. It's to keep the entities solvent.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

Of course the DB is a better deal for the employee, and no one debates that. But there's a harsh reality that people will need to face sooner or later; "we" can't fund people for 75 years of living with them working for say 35-40 years. If we want people to start working at say 20 years of age, retire at 55-60 and live until their 95, something has to change. The answer isn't always "just pay people", because it's not sustainable.

There’s a number of solutions available and adjustments that can be made to make it work. There’s a big difference between “we” can’t afford it and you not wanting to pay for it. Sorry Slava I guess I’m just not in favour of making the retirement plans of people who make less than you suffer just because it’s going to save you a little money in the short term.

Regardless though, the "living wage" doesn't have to mean a DB pension. And for a municipality or many other entities that's just going to cause a lot of problems down the road.

Only if we keep letting trickle downers decide on policy. Don’t you find it odd that more often than not the same people who complain about not being able to afford these pensions are the same people who think we can constantly afford to give tax breaks to businesses?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

There’s a number of solutions available and adjustments that can be made to make it work. There’s a big difference between “we” can’t afford it and you not wanting to pay for it. Sorry Slava I guess I’m just not in favour of making the retirement plans of people who make less than you suffer just because it’s going to save you a little money in the short term.



Only if we keep letting trickle downers decide on policy. Don’t you find it odd that more often than not the same people who complain about not being able to afford these pensions are the same people who think we can constantly afford to give tax breaks to businesses?

It’s not about saving me money. It’s about the fact that these pension plans are incredibly expensive in general and society cannot fund them. The math simply doesn’t work. If you’ve got any evidence aside from platitudes, I’m all ears.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

It’s not about saving me money. It’s about the fact that these pension plans are incredibly expensive in general and society cannot fund them. The math simply doesn’t work. If you’ve got any evidence aside from platitudes, I’m all ears.

You haven’t presented anything that suggests we actually can’t afford them, you just keep repeating that we can’t. Now you want me to prove that wrong?

We live in one the lowest taxed jurisdictions in the country so it’s asinine to suggest we’re at capacity as it relates to what we can afford for public sector compensation or that we’re anywhere close to the only option being to start taking away DB pensions.

Also, whether it’s intentional or not I noticed you’ve avoided explaining how the existing pension plans will remain solvent once you stop adding new employees to them.

For all your talking points about how the private sector has moved away from DB pensions because they’re too expensive, you never seem to explain why they are considered unsustainable but things like multimillion dollar CEO compensation and severance packages are still somehow deemed affordable by the same penny pinching system.

[GirlySports]

They can just print money and keep kicking the can down the road. Trudeau's government isn't going to fall because he gave away more money. It may fall if he raises taxes or cuts spending. Harper tried to raise the retirement age to 67, Trudeau lowered it back to 65 in a nanosecond.

Now municipal governments are in a different boat. They can't print money or run deficits and really their only money stream is property tax, so they keep having to raise that. But that's not easy either. Nenshi raised it 17% on half a percent over 3 years and was labeled a communist.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

…
Now municipal governments are in a different boat. They can't print money or run deficits and really their only money stream is property tax, so they keep having to raise that. But that's not easy either. Nenshi raised it 17% on half a percent over 3 years and was labeled a communist.

Actually, property taxes make up less than half of municipal revenues. Other sources include revenue sharing and provincial and federal grants, and fees and fines. I won’t challenge your contention that Nenshi raised taxes because I know that’s an oversight.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

There’s a number of solutions available and adjustments that can be made to make it work. There’s a big difference between “we” can’t afford it and you not wanting to pay for it. Sorry Slava I guess I’m just not in favour of making the retirement plans of people who make less than you suffer just because it’s going to save you a little money in the short term.

Interesting that you don’t consider how many people on DB public sector pension plans earn double the median income. Do you expect people who earn $50k or $60k a year and will have to work until they’re 65 to have a lot of sympathy for people who earn $90k-$110k who will retire at 58? So who is going to have to pay more, in you’re opinion, to assure comfortable, 25+ year retirements for people who retire in their 50s?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Interesting that you don’t consider how many people on DB public sector pension plans earn double the median income. Do you expect people who earn $50k or $60k a year and will have to work until they’re 65 to have a lot of sympathy for people who earn $90k-$110k who will retire at 58? So who is going to have to pay more, in you’re opinion, to assure comfortable, 25+ year retirements for people who retire in their 50s?

Maybe instead of blaming the people who are paid fairly in retirement, the people who earn $50k or $60k should start blaming their employers for hoarding profits and underpaying them?

Why do we always want to drag those who get to retire comfortably down? Why aren’t we trying to fight for better retirements for those getting screwed?

Misery loves company I guess.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Maybe instead of blaming the people who are paid fairly in retirement, the people who earn $50k or $60k should start blaming their employers for hoarding profits and underpaying them?

Why do we always want to drag those who get to retire comfortably down? Why aren’t we trying to fight for better retirements for those getting screwed?

Misery loves company I guess.

This.

Don't hate others for having a better deal, hate your own situation for not getting treated fairly

[GGG]

The other thing missing when people complain about teachers pension plans is that they are likely solvent for new entrants. Essentially if new teachers weren’t paying for existing pension earners the amount they are contributing would be fine.

Between them and their employer they contribute about 21-22% of their Salary to savings. If you save that much money you to can retire with almost as high of degree of solvency as a teacher.

You can do better than a teachers pension plan.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Well since the annoyance isn't about the money, Calgary's previous council unanimously passed a resolution that Calgary would formally oppose Bill 21. Even Farkas voted yes on this. Behind Chahal, Gondek was one of the champions of the resolution. Again if we ignore the money, informed voters knew of her vocal opposition to the bill so there should be no annoyance that she has remained consistent.

"Look at this person here saying very publicly she opposed Bill 21 before being elected and now after being elected she still does. Why can't she be like every other politician and flip flop after being elected?!"

I disagree with Cliff in that it wasn't about the money. It wasn't about the amount of money, but rather that any amount of taxpayer money directed toward that was too much because that money wasn't given to the municipal government to use for that purpose. It wasn't until it was expressed that CoC would chip in money for the opposition that anyone really got their back up about it.

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Also it's not like she came up with the most recent idea herself. It was in response to a call-to-arms made to all cities by Brampton's mayor. Ignoring Quebec cities all of the other major Canadian cities have had their council or the mayor denounce the bill (regardless of financially supporting the lawsuit). That includes all ten largest municipalities outside of the province of Quebec including Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Kitchener, London and Victoria and heck even Kitchener is helping to fund it.

Just because other municipalities are misappropriating their citizens' funds however they like doesn't mean Calgary should follow suit, even if it aligns with our ideology.

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by Slava

But there's a harsh reality that people will need to face sooner or later; "we" can't fund people for 75 years of living with them working for say 35-40 years.

Isn’t Slava supposed to be like a finance guy?

Does he even know how a DB pension works?

Does he understand that pension plans actually invest the money people contribute and grow their funds with that money?

That pensions are actually deferred wages?

That those working are actually the primary ones contributing to retirees incomes, not the government?

Good grief.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Isn’t Slava supposed to be like a finance guy?

Does he even know how a DB pension works?

Does he understand that pension plans actually invest the money people contribute and grow their funds with that money?

That pensions are actually deferred wages?

That those working are actually the primary ones contributing to retirees incomes, not the government?

Good grief.

Thanks tips. I’m well aware of how pensions operate and could give you a full rundown on DB plans and how they operate. Don’t worry about my qualifications though. This isn’t me on an island saying that DB pensions are declining, there are plenty of expert opinions and real world examples out there.

It’s not hard to figure out though. People used to retire at 65, have some good times and die closer to 70-75. We can’t plan that way now though. People want to retire earlier, and live longer. Which means the pension has to fund that retirement for a longer period of time. And yeah, of course it’s invested…but the returns have a lot of ground to make up when people retire earlier and live longer.

As for your “does he know series”, the thing is it’s not only deferred wages and salary. Plenty of these entities are adding funding and of course when returns aren’t keeping up, people are living longer and such, these entities are on the hook for that. And yeah, the employee makes a contribution to their pension, but the entity also makes contributions and those entities bear all the risk.

Like I say…you don’t have to take my word for it, as there are plenty of examples. Everything from municipalities to major corporations have had enormous issues with DB plans. This isn’t something I’ve dreamt up on my own and am hoping some anonymous accounts on CP are going to agree.

And don’t even get me started on iggy with his usual “we’ll just raise taxes” solution.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Interesting that you don’t consider how many people on DB public sector pension plans earn double the median income.

Is it more or less interesting than the fact that this is a complete and total assumption on your part? But since you brought it up, how many people on a public sector pension do? Are you suggesting there is no one earning either a private sector pension or retirement package worth as much or more?

Do you expect people who earn $50k or $60k a year and will have to work until they’re 65 to have a lot of sympathy for people who earn $90k-$110k who will retire at 58?

I’m sure you’d agree the answer is debatable, but I imagine that if the majority of tax payers saw their actual individual savings it probably wouldn’t hurt the teachers’ case. Worth noting that lot of people in that earnings range are parents and would probably prefer to maintain a system that isn’t attracting the lowest bidders to teach their children. I suppose that’s debatable as well though.

So who is going to have to pay more, in you’re opinion, to assure comfortable, 25+ year retirements for people who retire in their 50s?

The majority of people, including the people working towards those pensions.

Interesting that you constantly bring up the age argument considering you’re arguing we need to eliminate the DB plans altogether, as the age argument suggests there would be far more options to consider first.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

And don’t even get me started on iggy with his usual “we’ll just raise taxes” solution.

Not up for another round of trickle down economics vs sensible taxation policy? You were doing so well though Slava.