| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:42 am Post subject: MP pension reform bill coming? |
 |
|
| Quote: | Legislation will be introduced this fall to turn the vague hints of MP pension reform made in this week's budget into concrete plans, government sources say.
Changes will be made to the age of entitlement and benefit levels, though they won't take effect until after the next election in 2015.
In the meantime, MPs will start contributing more to their own pensions next year and by 2016, will pay half.
In advance of Thursday's budget, the Conservatives hinted they would take a hard line on MP pensions, after they raised the eligibility age for Old Age Security benefits to 67 from 65 |
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic.....eform.html |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This would make me pretty happy.
I told my MP, for whom I was the vice-campaign manager when he first became an MP, that I as pretty disappointed that the OAS age was raised and that I expected that MP pension reforms were coming. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I would hope that its a priority come Fall. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MPs should not have a better pension than the rest of Canadians. They should retire at 67 and collect the same old age security the rest of us will.
We pay their salaries and their health plans, and 6 years is not enough to warrant a substantial pension. If they worked 30 years as an MP perhaps I would be more generous.
I would move them to an RRSP savings plan, and use tax payers money to match a maximum 3-4% of their salary to the plan. So the tax payers contributions are always equal to or less than the MPs own contributions. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MPs get what, 70 or 75% of the average of the best 5 years, Bev Oda for instance will get $54,000 per year. The big problem with MPs pensions is that they can get them early with no actuarial reduction. Whatever they are entitled to should not be payable until age 65, or it's reduced. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It’s wrong that she can collect $52,183 in annual pension benefits after only eight years on the job....
THE END!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a different stance when it comes to pensions;
Generally speaking I agree that that MP's who are no longer MP's should wait till a reasonable retirement age to collect a pension, but I am not at all against the idea of MP's collecting one. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cosmostein wrote: | | I am not at all against the idea of MP's collecting one. |
Of course they should get a pension, however, it should align more with the rest of Canadians.
They just topped it off with an additional $23-million, not acceptable.....
They are laying off civil servants who will go home without a job, some working for 20+ years and will not make anything close to what MP's make, not acceptable...
Let's use Bev Oda as an example, she will collect $5K a month of tax payers money, when I collect CPP I might get $500 after working 65 years.... WOW..... Not acceptable......
Austerity come out of one side of the mouth, while stuffing our own pockets and living high off the tax payer.......... Conservative or Liberal, same shit, different color..... I remember Mr Harper back in his opposition days always complained about this, but not when he is now the benefactor of such extravagant benefits in times of "austerity" as they say..........
Do as I say not as I do............ Not the Conservatives I voted for...... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tpsdoodle wrote: |
Of course they should get a pension, however, it should align more with the rest of Canadians.
They just topped it off with an additional $23-million, not acceptable.....
They are laying off civil servants who will go home without a job, some working for 20+ years and will not make anything close to what MP's make, not acceptable...
Let's use Bev Oda as an example, she will collect $5K a month of tax payers money, when I collect CPP I might get $500 after working 65 years.... WOW..... Not acceptable..... |
I consider the work of an MP to be more challenging and certainly more vital then the vast majority of public sector jobs being cut at the moment and as such I have no problem with the compensation reflecting that fact.
The problem I have with politics is that it attracts career politicians;
The reason is pretty simple, to secure a Finance Minister who has decades of experience as a CFO of a successful major corporation would require a far larger salary then the $233,247 a cabinet minister walks away with, likely 10x that.
I have no issue with having solid salaries with excellent benefits given to the folks we elect to ultimately run the country, I would gladly triple it if it assured I could attract quality people to the position, however currently it appears we have a mixed bag.
I am in no rush to make the position of MP so unappealing to skilled Canadians that we end up with more unqualified career politicians in portfolios they have no experience in.
Our multi-billion dollar deficit is not due to the 50m we pay all 308 MP's to do their jobs.
Hoping for a point where MP's levels of compensation is equal to that of the "average Canadian" means you will have "average Canadians" doing that job and that is something I have little interest in, as after a long time in the private sector I have sadly concluded that you do in fact get what you pay for when it comes to staffing.
As I said above;
Limit the age in which they can start to collect pension; don't allow for a situation where eight years in Government means you never have to work again.
However, anything beyond that has more to do with principal then practicality. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cosmostein wrote: |
I consider the work of an MP to be more challenging and certainly more vital then the vast majority of public sector jobs being cut at the moment and as such I have no problem with the compensation reflecting that fact.
|
Public relations is probably the most difficult part of the job, they generally have communication directors for that though. I wouldn't agree that being an MP any more challenging than any other public sector job. It should be a simple and boring job if they are doing it right. If their job is getting complex then they are liberals and have too much money in the budget to ponder over.
As for being Vital, sure I would agree with that. However just because a position is vital doesn't mean they were good at it. If you work as MP 8 years and you're constantly making poor decisions you still end up with the same pension as other successful MPs. Normally you would hope they don't make it to 8 years, but some information doesn't make it's way to public knowledge for years later.
So my conclusion is that MPs should be paid well while in office, they should have complete health and dental coverage, and they should be assisted in some way with savings but not have a guaranteed pension. As I mentioned before it should be a registered account where tax payers will match a certain % of the MPs own contributions.
| cosmostein wrote: |
The problem I have with politics is that it attracts career politicians;
|
This is why it should be a simple and boring job. If there is any motivation for people to work in government other than just to help its citizens, than they will. You should be attracted to parliament to better the country, and your savings should be your own responsibility.
Since the Conservatives have been trumpeting savings accounts such as TFSA and RRSP they should be leading by example. Get rid of pensions, switch to RRSP. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| centrifugal wrote: |
Public relations is probably the most difficult part of the job, they generally have communication directors for that though. I wouldn't agree that being an MP any more challenging than any other public sector job. It should be a simple and boring job if they are doing it right. If their job is getting complex then they are liberals and have too much money in the budget to ponder over. |
I think there are creative means to save money; I see it in the private sector everyday.
I also think there are creative ways to stimulate the economy without having to turn over the taxpayers piggy-bank and shake out the contents.
We need innovation in government;
The clock punching mentality you have described is exactly why I would be content to double MP's salaries if it led to some creative government choices, we are clearly not attracting the right people to government.
| centrifugal wrote: | | So my conclusion is that MPs should be paid well while in office, they should have complete health and dental coverage, and they should be assisted in some way with savings but not have a guaranteed pension. As I mentioned before it should be a registered account where tax payers will match a certain % of the MPs own contributions. |
I can get behind that;
A matched payment year over year to allow MP's to contribute to any number of the retirement vehicles that are available to them is reasonable. |
|
|
|
|
|
