• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2011

E.R. Campbell said:
Good! Then support whichever party promises to get rid of our current campaign financing scheme: make candidates and parties earn their own money by proposing policies and values that will convince "ordinary Canadians,' folks like you and me, to give them a few dollars - but not too many, say $2,500.00 per household, maximum, and none at all, not one red cent, from corporations, trade unions or special interest groups. Donations should come from "ordinary," tax paying, individual Canadian citizens, only. And, above all, no (or, at least, damned little - maybe $0.05/vote) public financing and no "donated" services like PR support from companies.

I agree with ER. If political parties want funding, they should fundraise like the kids in school do....door to door selling chocolate almonds.

Now....I was trying to watch the election coverage but got fed up. I watched "The Cat in The Hat" instead. He made more sense, and is not as dense.

 
Jim Seggie said:
I agree with ER. If political parties want funding, they should fundraise like the kids in school do....door to door selling chocolate almonds.

Now....I was trying to watch the election coverage but got fed up. I watched "The Cat in The Hat" instead. He made more sense, and is not as dense.

I pretty much agree on both points.

I don't object to a mechanism that directs some funding based on voting, but absolutely I think only individuals should be permitted to donate, not corporations or any other entities, and only to a fairly low limit.
 
Jim Seggie said:
If political parties want funding, they should fundraise like the kids in school do....door to door selling chocolate almonds.

That suggestion makes me thankful to live in a gated community.
 
Redeye said:
What would the deficit be if they hadn't made those two rather short-sighted and foolhardy GST cuts?

A whole heck of a lot more than if we were NDP and doubled CPP and made a National Daycare system. GST cuts allowed more money into the pockets of consumers to stimulate spending in a bad economy. More public spending means more jobs, which gives us less people on EI and more income tax being paid.
 
PuckChaser said:
GST cuts allowed more money into the pockets of consumers to stimulate spending in a bad economy. More public spending means more jobs, which gives us less people on EI and more income tax being paid.

Well, I did find one study the CBC reported on that suggests the answer to the question is somewhere between $40-42 billion, so it wouldn't have totally saved us.  It's here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/06/16/f-gst-cut-estimate-deficit.html

As for GST cuts stimulating spending, I'm having a hard time finding any good studies on that, but it's probably too recent for a good bit of research, but it's interesting that at the time the Globe and Mail published article (it's here, by the way: http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071024.wgstt1024/BNStory/National/) which noted that 20 economists from across the political interest spectrum all blasted the GST cuts for a variety of reasons.  Consumption taxes are generally accepted as being the "fairest" of taxes, particularly in Canada where lower income earners qualify for a credit against the GST anyhow to offset its impact on them.

When I did the math on how much it impacted me, the answer was "not much at all, really".  On small ticket items, I found a lot of retailers happily sucked up the difference in additional profits (keeping their "even" prices the same).  It did impact some bigger ticket purchases, but not in any way that it was a dealbreaker for spending decisions.  I can't assume my situation was universally applicable, but I would think that a cut in personal income taxes likely would have accomplished more at the same price, and a better policy decision.  Cutting the GST was a cheap, populist move rather than a considered economic decision.
 
PuckChaser said:
A whole heck of a lot more than if we were NDP and doubled CPP and made a National Daycare syste.

Well, an NDP government's pretty much never going to happen.  Thankfully.

CPP has nothing to do with the deficit, incidentally - and the policy to double the CPP (both the contributions and the annuity payable) has some merit given that private sector pensions are becoming a distant memory for many people - forced savings in a well managed public pension doesn't strike me as a bad idea.  I deal on a daily basis with people getting closer and closer to retirement with nowhere near enough to maintain their standard of living, because they didn't save enough.
 
Redeye said:
CPP has nothing to do with the deficit, incidentally - and the policy to double the CPP (both the contributions and the annuity payable) has some merit given that private sector pensions are becoming a distant memory for many people - forced savings in a well managed public pension doesn't strike me as a bad idea.  I deal on a daily basis with people getting closer and closer to retirement with nowhere near enough to maintain their standard of living, because they didn't save enough.

That's all fine and dandy for the private sector, but I really don't want to double contributions on CPP when I'm simply going to get it clawed back because you're already collecting PSSA. At what point do people need to be held responsible for our own fate?
 
PuckChaser said:
That's all fine and dandy for the private sector, but I really don't want to double contributions on CPP when I'm simply going to get it clawed back because you're already collecting PSSA. At what point do people need to be held responsible for our own fate?

Given that the Goverment pension plans (CFSA, PSSA, RCMPSA, arrangements for MPs) are extremely generous and far from self-financing, perhaps a bit of introspection might be in order - if you are "responsible for your fate" you'd be putting aside roughly 2 1/2 times your current pension contributions.

I suspect that the PSSA (at least) will undergo significant revisions in the near to medium term, with accrued benefits protected but future benefits accumulating at a slower rate - for the sake of argument, say 1.8% per year to a maximum of 39 years instead of the current 2%/35 year model.  Federal plans permit folks to retire at 55 with a 70% pension, without reduction.  It's a very generous benefit that's rarely seen with non-public sector employers.  And given the current mood in the country, I don't see any political party jumping in to defend the public service.
 
PuckChaser said:
That's all fine and dandy for the private sector, but I really don't want to double contributions on CPP when I'm simply going to get it clawed back because you're already collecting PSSA. At what point do people need to be held responsible for our own fate?

Not to echo dapaterson too much, you're not going to find a lot of sympathy amongst many voters or political parties for the woes of public service pension annuitants.  That said, I think you could see some manner of reform done to PSSA so that it integrates with CPP like private sector pensions do.

It's all fine and good to talk about holding people responsible for their fate, but guess who ends up paying regardless of how much finger-pointing we do.  Unless you think the country is likely to decide to toss people out on the street for their lack of "personal responsibility", it's hard to argue that some manner of improving pensions is a bad idea.
 
[rabbit hole]
The PSSA and other federal plans are integrated with the CPP, with the plan providing essentially a core benefit plus a bridge benefit that is lost at age 65.  There are loud complainers who dislike the fact that their pension is "reduced" at age 65; apparently all the briefings they received about their pension were ignored, and they faile dto ever read any information about it.
[/rabbit hole]
 
Actually Redeye, from my point of view it is very easy to argue against increasing CPP. At what point do we say enough and start holding people accountable for their actions? What you and others are proposing takes money out of my pocket while I'm trying to save for retirement and hands it to those too irresponsible to bother saving for their own retirement. Also we hand the money to a bunch of overpaid, over pensioned bureaucrats to mismanage. You may think that the CPP is well managed, I for one do not. Lending the money to the provinces at 1 or 2% interest hardly qualifies as a good investment since it is our tax dollars that are paying the interest.

KJK
 
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/962165--mallick-what-if-harper-s-dream-of-a-majority-comes-true

The Toronto Star Mon Mar 28 2011
By Heather Mallick Star Columnist

Mallick: What if Harper's dream of a majority comes true?


What if the Harper Government were to win a majority?

I won't lie to you, my job would become easier by yards, it being possible that Stephen Harper would ditch the metric system to please the Americans. (Although I was born at just the wrong time and still measure everything in ounces centigrade.)

I wouldn't patrol the newsroom looking for column ideas, they would simply arrive on my mental doorstep like cowpats.

A Harper majority government would be dishonest. That's an easy one, they're Dodgy Inc. now, with their in-and-out campaign financing, lying to Parliament, allegations of illegally blocking freedom of information, killing the long-form census to cater to invented online outrage, wildly underestimating the cost of those Lockheed Martin jets, padding the Senate they previously vowed to reform, accepting fat MP pensions they once decried . . . I could go on but lack the space and sometimes the will to live, frankly.

A recent poll shows that Canadians know the Harper government tells whoppers. For the Harper regime, lying is a core value, to the point where there's a bouncy aggressive incredulity when they're questioned about it in the House of Commons. They regard opposition MPs as dogs lunging at a G20 wire fence when they've already been trained with electroshocks to never do that again.

Old-tyme religion will reign, and our spiritual leader will be Harper's favourite evangelical, Charles McVety. I've met him. He's like Mike Huckabee without the affable (and convenient) stupidity. There's a canniness to McVety that worries me, because I've seen his followers and they are not canny. They are obedient though.

I used to decry the concept of tenure, suspecting it made professors coast in class, but now I see it as a fence standing between us and the intellectually primitive. In Harperland, your students would turn you in for Wrongspeak and you would lose your job.

I have had my occasional conceptual quarrels with unions but with Harper running the country, I would proudly wear the union label. I want jobs for all at reasonable pay, not an abandoned layer of unemployed and working poor people at the bottom. But this is a structure that works for Harper.

Canada would increasingly resemble the U.S., a model that makes European countries shudder. Guns on the street, gated communities, rampant drug use, unlimited anonymous corporate political donations, no government safety standards for food and medicine, classrooms that resemble holding pens more than civilized safe rooms for the young to learn . . . If Harper got his majority, these things would hit us like an avalanche.

Citizens regarded as “ethnics” would be courted until election day, and then abandoned. Forget family reunification, forget federal money to ease non-whites' path into Canadian society, forget English classes.

Women's rights would retreat, including abortion rights, access to medical advances and the right to go to court to protest inequality.

Everything would be up for privatization, from roads, parks and parking meters to schools and hospitals.

Individuals would be in trouble. As I have written before, Harper's targeting of perceived enemies verges on the Stalinist. I find Harper's treatment of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, whose Russian ancestors fled the Reds, as sinister as anything I have ever seen in politics. Harper's goons accuse Ignatieff of being an aristocrat passing himself off as a regular guy.

Funny, the Ignatieffs would have heard this from the Communists a century ago. No one's responsible for their relatives. And wealth — if Ignatieff's grandparents had any — isn't a crime. But the Stalinists, and indeed the Khmer Rouge who condemned intellectuals and killing anyone wearing glasses, didn't see it that way.

If that's what they say about Ignatieff, imagine what they'll say about you. The Conservative hate machine will swivel toward you like a Dalek and advance. You're doomed. A Harper majority government wouldn't just lash out generally. It would hunt down its enemies.

Fear these people. Don't get sick. Don't grow old. Don't have children. Make yourself invulnerable.

hmallick@thestar.ca
 
I heard this on CJOB. What a load of crap. I hope someone schools her on her yellow journalism.
 
Rifleman62 said:
By Heather Mallick    Star Columnist
Well, I have to admit, she's outdone herself with this one. There is not the remotest doubt that this is the most stupid opinion column she has ever written....and she's pulled some winners out of her "cowpat-like mental doorstep" in the past.



.....to say nothing of being insulting to real Stalinists everywhere.    ;)
 
Journeyman said:
....and she's pulled some winners out of her "cowpat-like mental doorstep" in the past.
Ah, Heather Mallick, the voice of moderation, balance and reason....
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/79969.0.html (here's the original article, since it's no longer up at CBC.ca )
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/16536.0.html (here's the original article, courtesy of Archive.org, since it's no longer up at the Globe & Mail)
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....
 
She's managed to invoke the newspaper version of Godwin's law two days into the campaign. I hope both she and the Star get hammered over this, but I won't hold my breath waiting.
 
ModlrMike said:
She's managed to invoke the newspaper version of Godwin's law two days into the campaign. I hope both she and the Star get hammered over this, but I won't hold my breath waiting.
My fave comment so far:
I just read the commenting guidelines. If the same guidelines were applied to this article, I doubt that it would have been published!
 
dapaterson said:
Federal plans permit folks to retire at 55 with a 70% pension, without reduction.  It's a very generous benefit that's rarely seen with non-public sector employers.

Municipal is the same: 2% X 35 years of full-time service = 70% unreduced pension. Payable the month you turn 55. 

But, since I retired, the accrual rate has increased from 2% to 2.33%. Earnings used in the pension formula have improved from best five years to best three years. The 90 Factor ( member's age + service ) has improved to an 80 Factor. A 70% unreduced pension is now possible / payable the month you turn 50.
They had to amend Canada’s Income Tax Act in 2003 to do it. The unions ( police, fire, ambulance ) had been lobbying the federal Finance Ministry and members of parliament for it since 1999.
The improvement was considered necessary for public safety because the average age of recruits in the emergency services has been increasing steadily in recent years:
http://www.omers.com/pdf/Supplemental_Plan_handbook.pdf
 
Alberta provincial union member here (not by choice)

50/50 split on costs going into the pension, 85 factor for experience and age and pays out 40% of best 5 years average.  It is however apprently indexed to the national inflation (usually about half of Alberta's in my experience).

Contributions increased by 3% two years ago due to mismanagement of the fund making it short so all current employees are forced to pay for those already retired...yes I know it's common practice but as a younger employee I'll be paying that difference a long time.

Needless to say I won't be able to retire on 40% of my salary and meet my goals so I need to find additional savings somewhere.  On the other hand 40% should be enough to put a roof over the head and basic food on the table if a person only plans for that little in the future.   

I'm not sure how tough it would be to allow individuals the oportunity to participate in the plan contingent upon 100% of payment of pension dues in exchange for the same retirement oportunities the public sector offers.  While optomistic I doubt it would happen due to the increase in administration due to more people involved but a voluntary participation plan for those who do not know/care to learn how to manage their money should be doable.

Anyways...2 cents worth
 
Back
Top