Mr. Tombe has another paper out, pages 15-17 make a pretty compelling case for a different interpretation of the act's actual language than the Robart interpretation- which was made prior to the reforms of the 90's.Incorrect. That is not what the CPP Act says. The Act does not care how much is in the fund at the moment a province withdraws. The Province is entitled to however much money they would have earned had they not joined in 1965.
I'm questioning the reason why the UCP wants to reduce the ROI by withdrawing a huge amount of the equity from the CPP? I'm no financial guru but the more people contributing to the current kitty is a lot better than one taking a chunk out and investing the smaller share with a smaller group of contributors.
I don’t think an APP will ever see the light of day. My point remains that this could go in unexpected directions.If you want to think that’s how this will all play out once it’s actually litigated, have at ‘er.
Perhaps you’re not appreciating the ‘R’ in ROI?I'm questioning the reason why the UCP wants to reduce the ROI by withdrawing a huge amount of the equity from the CPP? I'm no financial guru but the more people contributing to the current kitty is a lot better than one taking a chunk out and investing the smaller share with a smaller group of contributors.
I don’t think an APP will ever see the light of day. My point remains that this could go in unexpected directions.
I am deeply frustrated we have a Federal Government that has so mishandled Federal-Provincial relations over the past 8 year that we have even gotten to this point.
Perhaps you’re not appreciating the ‘R’ in ROI?
Why would the rate of investment go down? Total earnings is not the same. If…if…Alberta were to secede las the CPP Act legally allows, and it was issued with whatever amount was eventually transferred, be it 15%, 18%, 20%, %25, heck even the pre-negotiations spaghetti of 54% thrown at the wall…the smaller pool of Alberta’s annuitants drawing on a similarly (and likely proportional +/- ration to capital in an APP fund) would be minimally different than the C - Q - A rest of Canada and their equally proportionately smaller CPP fund. The issue is the question what respective contribution rates and disbursement rates would be, and by many accounts, the APP would be no worse off than the CPP fund, and in some cases, it would appear that this could be achieved with a lower contribution rate in Alberta than in the ROC (8.3% vs 9.5% I recall), based on Alberta workers/contributors relative youth relative to other ROC CPP contributors.
As is done for QPP as well. I contributed to QPP for a couple of years. I’ll draw from CPP. That’s understood, and I don’t see where there is any expectation otherwise. That would be taking into account in a fair and honest discussion between Canada and Alberta, in accordance with the Act.Totally fair
The pet Alberta’s not saying out loud is that a relatively higher proportion of younger workers work in Alberta for some years, contribute to CPP up to the YMPE, and then leave Alberta later in life, living out their retirement elsewhere. A fair division of assets would need to take into account relative proportion of earnings years spent in Alberta, and relative proportion of benefits-drawing-years not spent in Alberta.
You are likely very correct. I also fear that the UCP will call this (lets say) an "Alberta Reverse Mortgage" and blow it away with Ralph Bucks!Perhaps you’re not appreciating the ‘R’ in ROI?
Why would the rate of investment go down? Total earnings is not the same. If…if…Alberta were to secede las the CPP Act legally allows, and it was issued with whatever amount was eventually transferred, be it 15%, 18%, 20%, %25, heck even the pre-negotiations spaghetti of 54% thrown at the wall…the smaller pool of Alberta’s annuitants drawing on a similarly (and likely proportional +/- ration to capital in an APP fund) would be minimally different than the C - Q - A rest of Canada and their equally proportionately smaller CPP fund. The issue is the question what respective contribution rates and disbursement rates would be, and by many accounts, the APP would be no worse off than the CPP fund, and in some cases, it would appear that this could be achieved with a lower contribution rate in Alberta than in the ROC (8.3% vs 9.5% I recall), based on Alberta workers/contributors relative youth relative to other ROC CPP contributors.
That would be unfortunate, but hearing from my cousins in AB and Storie’s of the once great Heritage Fund, I don’t discount that as a possibility, although it is unlikely, because legislatively, it would most likely be a fund of a similar nature as to the CPP and QPPminvedtment funds, not some vaporous Govermnent electronic account reconciled against the province’s general operating account.You are likely very correct. I also fear that the UCP will call this (lets say) an "Alberta Reverse Mortgage" and blow it away with Ralph Bucks!
I would ask for you to direct your cousins in Ab to this link Heritage Savings Trust Fund read about the actual fund. Not the BS that has been floating around about it. Opinions and views often are backed up by facts.That would be unfortunate, but hearing from my cousins in AB and Storie’s of the once great Heritage Fund, I don’t discount that as a possibility, although it is unlikely, because legislatively, it would most likely be a fund of a similar nature as to the CPP and QPPminvedtment funds, not some vaporous Govermnent electronic account reconciled against the province’s general operating account.
Is it really a twist? I would have bet serious money that he would be against itAnd in an interesting twist…
It’s probable yes. I would have thought he’d stay quiet about it and let Trudeau and Smith go at it but he’s got Alberta locked in his corner regardless.Is it really a twist? I would have bet serious money that he would be against it
It’s probable yes. I would have thought he’d stay quiet about it and let Trudeau and Smith go at it but he’s got Alberta locked in his corner regardless.
I’m guessing he is telegraphing what a CPC government’s position will be if that time comes where Alberta would need to negotiate their exit from the plan.
Mostly?He knows Alberta’s safe for him in an electoon. This is a signal to the rest of Canada that prevents the LPC from planting any seeds that CPC would support the dismemberment of the Canada Pension Plan. It’s a low risk position, because the clamor for an APP is mostly just resistance to the LPC federal government. Elect the conservatives federally and I think it would mostly fade.
Many of the people whom I know that worked out of province were taxed in their home province. If your primary residence was elsewhere your tax was paid there, not here. Which was a big kick in the pants when things started to slow down and we still had all these high paid out of province workers here. They were using Provincial resources such as hospital, roads, local infrastructure but paying their tax elsewhere. Other areas of the country loved it for the free revenue..Totally fair
The pet Alberta’s not saying out loud is that a relatively higher proportion of younger workers work in Alberta for some years, contribute to CPP up to the YMPE, and then leave Alberta later in life, living out their retirement elsewhere. A fair division of assets would need to take into account relative proportion of earnings years spent in Alberta, and relative proportion of benefits-drawing-years not spent in Alberta.
If we're believing polling these days (like those showing PP well ahead of JT), looks like "stay in CPP" is backed by more Canadians & Albertans than "GTFO CPP" - for the moment, anyway.... It’s a low risk position, because the clamor for an APP is mostly just resistance to the LPC federal government ...
He knows Alberta’s safe for him in an electoon. This is a signal to the rest of Canada that prevents the LPC from planting any seeds that CPC would support the dismemberment of the Canada Pension Plan. It’s a low risk position, because the clamor for an APP is mostly just resistance to the LPC federal government. Elect the conservatives federally and I think it would mostly fade.
So those workers from out of province using your hospitals would not have had a provincial health card meaning your province would have recouped those costs from those people’s home provinces under the appropriate reciprocal agreements.Many of the people whom I know that worked out of province were taxed in their home province. If your primary residence was elsewhere your tax was paid there, not here. Which was a big kick in the pants when things started to slow down and we still had all these high paid out of province workers here. They were using Provincial resources such as hospital, roads, local infrastructure but paying their tax elsewhere. Other areas of the country loved it for the free revenue..
I would imagine that the CPP portion would be figured out very easily. Whos' where what and when.
Nothing unreasonable about his position. A rare occasion where he is in agreement with Trudeau and vice versa.
If you read the article its just PP saying he wants Alberta to stay in the CPP and its the LPCs fault that this subject has reared its ugly head, and if he was the PM it wouldn't be an issue as he would give Alberta the freedom it needs to develop its resources.
Seems reasonable to me.
Was that Freudian ? lol