Future of Government Pensions (PS, CF & RCMP) & CF pension "double-dip"

[Fishbone Jones]

:-\ Im befuddled here recceguy... Perhaps its my simple sailor mind but how does one go from a CRA discussion in Canada to working hours in France ?

Not intended to be rude, I just don't see the correlation.

It was a reponse to the part of RDJP's post that I quoted within my post. Constant lowering of the retirement age could lead to the same problems as found in France.

Sharing work as means to employ everyone, young and old, is just part and parcel of the whole equation. My post also mentions forced retirement and the rest is simply some of the systemic things that could go with it and work sharing.

After all, if we're going to tell everyone what to do, whether they like it or not, we should look at all the extrapolations and how it will affect things and them, right?

 

[Halifax Tar]

It was a reponse to the part of RDJP's post that I quoted within my post. Constant lowering of the retirement age could lead to the same problems as found in France.

Sharing work as means to employ everyone, young and old, is just part and parcel of the whole equation. My post also mentions forced retirement and the rest is simply some of the systemic things that could go with it and work sharing.

After all, if we're going to tell everyone what to do, whether they like it or not, we should look at all the extrapolations and how it will affect things and them, right?

And when the population keeps increasing, what do we do - then lower the mandatory age to 55? 50? 45?

No jobs?  Go find one....it won't get handed to you.  I had to move over halfway across the country with my family to find work....but the part that is important is that I DID MOVE to find employment.  I see to many young people just sitting around wishing there were more jobs in their areas.

No one is lowering the CRA. In fact its been done away with. I personally think leaving it at 65 would have been fair to all parties.

If you are not in a position after 45 years of working ability to retire than that's a "life is tough" scenario but you should still be made to move out of the way. It is your life you are correct. But the young deserve the same opportunities you got at that age.

Sometimes governments should do what the people need, require and what is right. That may conflict with what they want. This is one of those cases. Unfortunately this will have a major negative impact on our work force over time.  But those who finally do retire at 80 years old wont care.

I for one look forward to retirement in 8 years, with 20 years service. And I look forward to starting a new career at that point what ever it might be. I will guarantee you one thing, If I have to work past 65 something is very wrong.

 

[mariomike]

In OMERS ( which includes Ontario municipal emergency services ), once you turn 55, and have "maxed out" your pension to 70 per cent of pre-retirement income, there is little incentive to stay. You can stay if you wish to do so, but your pay will only be 30 per cent more than if you took the pension.

Because the age of the average police, fire and paramedic recruit has steadily increased over the years, Ontario municipal contracts are being negotiated from a 2% to 2.33% accrual rate for those occupations. From best five years to best three years earnings formula. From a 90 Factor ( age + years of service - minimum age 55 ) to an 80 Factor ( minimum age 50 ).
It is now possible to retire on a 70 per cent pension on your 50th birthday, rather than your 55th.
This is recent. I served under the old plan. ( 2%, best five years, age 55 ).

Firefighters and paramedics in Toronto who have not retired by age 60 are removed from front-line 9-1-1 operations and placed in support positions until mandatory retirement at age 65. However, with the new federal legislation, and given that these support positions are in limited supply, emergency services will be challenged  to expand their accommodation efforts for an aging workforce who stay on ( whether by freedom of choice, or out of necessity because they joined later in life ) beyond the age of 65.
I believe this will become an increasingly greater challenge as we "baby boomers" who joined straight out of high school retire, while call volume is increasing.

More on the above from the Canadian Association of Retired People CARP:
"Mandatory Retirement – federal step forward, Ontario steps back";
http://www.carp.ca/2011/11/18/mandatory-retirement-ontario-steps-back/

 

[Maxadia]

Well put my friend.  Its an interesting subject, and one that will be sure to be a interesting discussion.

My wife is a teacher with the Halifax Regional School Board. She was very lucky to get full employment right away as she is a french teacher. The vast majority of our friends that are teachers are between the ages of 25-35 and cannot find full employment. A big reason they list is that older teachers just aren't willing to retire.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? So if these friends can't find full time work for the next, say, 10 years - you think it's better that they retire at 65 to make room for others?

You have to remember things are changing. It's now believed that students in today's society may have an average of up to 17 different jobs over their working life...no facts to back it up, but from what I've seen it seems to be on the right track.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

No one is lowering the CRA. In fact its been done away with. I personally think leaving it at 65 would have been fair to all parties.

If you are not in a position after 45 years of working ability to retire than that's a "life is tough" scenario but you should still be made to move out of the way. It is your life you are correct. But the young deserve the same opportunities you got at that age.

Sometimes governments should do what the people need, require and what is right. That may conflict with what they want. This is one of those cases. Unfortunately this will have a major negative impact on our work force over time.  But those who finally do retire at 80 years old wont care.

I for one look forward to retirement in 8 years, with 20 years service. And I look forward to starting a new career at that point what ever it might be. I will guarantee you one thing, If I have to work past 65 something is very wrong.

So if one of these 45 year, too bad so sad, life is tough people, can't make it in retirement, who takes care of him?

It's not a cut and dried consequence. I'm just spitballing and looking at different scenarios.

Cause and effect stuff.

Better than saying, " You're 60, hit the bricks".

I wish you luck in your endevours.

 

[armyvern]

So if one of these 45 year, too bad so sad, life is tough people, can't make it in retirement, who takes care of him?

It's not a cut and dried consequence. I'm just spitballing and looking at different scenarios.

Cause and effect stuff.

Better than saying, " You're 60, hit the bricks".

I wish you luck in your endevours.

I'll just toss this out there then (and I'm pro-abolishment of CRA) as an answer to your highlighted question, in the same vein as "just looking at causes and effects" because there certainly WILL be some future effects felt when these 17careerers reach their own elderly years.

The exact same Canadian taxpayer who will have to fork out higher taxes and pension payments to look after our current generation of those just-entering the workforce who will now never have an opportunity to work towards earning a pension at one (or two) places long enough in their entire working-lives/years as they muddle through their 17 (probably minimum wage, non benefit paying, part-time 17 careers).

They'll never earn a pension and you think somehow they'll just be left to rot on the side of the streets in their later years? I doubt it. I'll get ready for my grandchildren being part of the "Ultimate Social Program Generation" now all supported by the lifers in the Federal Service. Good work if you can get it.

 

[a_majoor]

Many older people need to continue working past 65 since they do not have high paying pensions and benefits. This isnt about rights or desire, but simple survival.

 

[armyvern]

Many older people need to continue working past 65 since they do not have high paying pensions and benefits. This isnt about rights or desire, but simple survival.

100 percent correct ...

Which is what an entire Generation of 17 career-in-a-lifetime pers will face when they hit their later years as per my post below ...

Thanks for re-inforcing that point.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'll just toss this out there then (and I'm pro-abolishment of CRA) as an answer to your highlighted question, in the same vein as "just looking at causes and effects" because there certainly WILL be some future effects felt when these 17careerers reach their own elderly years.

The exact same Canadian taxpayer who will have to fork out higher taxes and pension payments to look after our current generation of those just-entering the workforce who will now never have an opportunity to work towards earning a pension at one (or two) places long enough in their entire working-lives/years as they muddle through their 17 (probably minimum wage, non benefit paying, part-time 17 careers).

They'll never earn a pension and you think somehow they'll just be left to rot on the side of the streets in their later years? I doubt it. I'll get ready for my grandchildren being part of the "Ultimate Social Program Generation" now all supported by the lifers in the Federal Service. Good work if you can get it.

I don't think anything of the sort. Just asked a question is all.

But thanks for your POV anyway.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Ahhh.. Baby Boomers... Always thinking of themselve before anything else...

Jokes aside, there has to be a rotation of personnel over time.  The olds need to give way to the younger generations.  This can be seen at Air Canada right now.  No place for advancement for new hires (they get stuck as a First Officier for 15+ years, not because they don't perform, because they can't.  The old farts stick around forever). 

Having a CRA has 2 big advantages:
1- It protects people from themselve.  A lot of people WILL work themselve to death.. Litterally.
2- It forces a healthy rotation of personnel across all the industries.

By setting, let's say, CRA to 65 years of age, you send a clear message to people:  Be ready to retire by 65.  That's 40+ years!!  Save, have enough money available to maintain the lifestyle you want.  Be it with a pension plan, savings, RRSPs, piggy bank, whatever.  BUT, again, lots of baby boomers bought toys and had fun, instead of saving for retirement.  And then, when comes time for retirement, younger generations have to pay for their bad decisions. 

 

[a_majoor]

Sadly, one of the answers to the problem has been blocked by the Federal Government for decades: increasing the contribution amounts to RRSP's.

The amount was supposed to be increased as far back as the 1990's, but the amount has not been raised to the amounts that actuaries recommended. I'm not ready to do the full Google Search for dates and amounts right now (but anyone who can weigh in with actual facts and figures is welcome to do so).

RRSP's are portable, self directed, may include employer contributions (for companies able and willing to do so) and quite flexible, so even a person who has 17 part-time careers through their working lifetime can set aside some monies for their retirement, and compound interest and a bit of self discipline will ensure a decent, but not lavish retirement. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

By setting, let's say, CRA to 65 years of age, you send a clear message to people: Be ready to retire by 65 The Canadian Human Rights Act can be ignored and you are too old to work because younger people think their needs and wants are more important than yours.  

Same message, just different wording...

 

[SupersonicMax]

It's not about anybody's need, but what good, in the long term, for the country.  An old working force with nobody below ready to take over is not healthy.

 

[aesop081]

It's not about anybody's need, but what good, in the long term, for the country.  An old working force with nobody below ready to take over is not healthy.

While that is certainly true, it does not get us around the charter.

 

[SupersonicMax]

There are exceptions to the charter.  We are a good example.  Where there's a will, there's a way.

It's not discrimination when NOBODY past 65 can work.

 

[Container]

If people live longer and are "healthier" for more of their years- how does younger people having to advance slower in their careers hurt?

Just because they have to be "junior" longer? To be honest Im still "young"-ish. I have no intention of letting someone talking me in to a home because they want my job. You can have it when you prove better than me at it.

Not to long ago I was on a course being taught by a 60 year old assaulter. He still ran his physical at under 3:00minutes which is something most men in their twenties cant do. He should be pushed aside because some softer young fella wants his job?

The retirement age has been stagnant while peoples "good years" have gotten longer- why shouldnt it change too? If your in a job where your mind and body are required to show up it'll get pretty obvious when you need to leave.

 

[SupersonicMax]

If everybody retired at an appropriate age by themselve, it could work. However, you will always have a majority of people that won't have sufficiently contributed, a way or another, to retirement savings (and removing CRA will just be a catalyst, insiting people NOT to invest in their retirement, since they can work till they drop) and will keep working past normal retirement age.  This will always clog up the bottom and will, as a result, force the younger generation to work till they drop, since they will not have enough working years to save enough money to retire at a decent age.

At that stage, it's not about who's best for the job: there are plenty of people that can do the work these older people do, as good or sometimes better.  It's about making space at the bottom to train the next generation.

 

[armyvern]

I don't think anything of the sort. Just asked a question is all.

But thanks for your POV anyway.

Actually it was a rhetorical question. Sorry that you took the "you" personally.

It was rather meant as "Canadians" (we baby boomers in general who are the beneficiaries of this recent change) have just collectively passed it off to the next generation. Nothing changes, just who and when. No matter, you and I probably won't be around when that generation hits their elderly years. 

 

[MJP]

It's not discrimination when NOBODY past 65 can work.

The courts since the inception of the Charter have taken a different look at "equal" types of discrimination than what you are saying.  Before the charter, under the Bill of Rights, judges usually ruled the way you have presented the issue.  One example of this was the practice of native women losing their native status if they married someone non-native. Their were several cases raised and one that that made it to the Supreme Court in the Bill of Rights era around this issue.  The courts interpreted that since all native women were treated equally then there was no discrimination.1

After the Charter however this was changed and judges no longer look at there being no discrimination just because it applies equally to all people.  Rather for discrimination to be found it must be determined if the burden or denial of benefit harms an individual's human dignity (Law v. Canada). That is, the discrimination will marginalize, ignore, or devalue an individual's sense of self-respect and self-worth.  There is more to it but it is as one can see quite different than the strict interpretation seen under the Bill of Rights.

Regardless it will be interesting in the next 10-15 years to see this new change being played out in the MSM and via the courts.

1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_of_Canada_v._Lavell

 

[SupersonicMax]

MJP, it was my opinion, and mine only. I should have specified. I understand what the law says. However, like I said, when there's will, there's a way. Exceptions to the law exist.