Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Canada ups retirement age in bid to balance budget
YahooNews ^

Posted on 03/30/2012 4:05:16 AM PDT by quesney

Canada's center-right government called for the retirement age to be raised and for major public service cuts Thursday, in an austerity budget that aims to balance the books by 2016.

Tackling unpopular measures that many industrialized countries are being forced to consider as their populations age, the Canadian government said its budget would help the country move a step ahead.

"Other Western countries face the risk of long-term economic decline. We have a rare opportunity to position our country for sustainable, long-term growth," Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said in the House of Commons.

(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS:
Canada - where the adult policymakers are. Meanwhile, in the US, in the District of Clowns and Kabuki Theater...
1 posted on 03/30/2012 4:05:20 AM PDT by quesney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: quesney
Canada - where the adult policymakers are. Meanwhile, in the US, in the District of Clowns and Kabuki Bukakke Theater...

There ya go, fixed that - no charge. ;)
2 posted on 03/30/2012 4:23:00 AM PDT by mkjessup (0bama squats to pee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quesney; exg; Alberta's Child; albertabound; AntiKev; backhoe; Byron_the_Aussie; Cannoneer No. 4; ..

The Finance Minister specifically declines to characterize his budget as an austerity budget.


3 posted on 03/30/2012 4:24:21 AM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quesney

The USA already raised the age for full retirement long ago. Trouble is we didn’t raise the age for early retirement. No one in this country can get full SS benefits at age 65 anymore. It is now 66 and going to 67.


4 posted on 03/30/2012 4:33:16 AM PDT by csmusaret (I have kleptomania, but when it gets too bad I take something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret

While we have raised the age of full SS benefit eligibility, we haven’t raised it far enough or fast enough to prevent serious problems.

It needs to be raised to about 75 *right now*. Not decades off in the future, but now.

As it is, the money flow tipping point (whether more money was going into or coming out of the SS fund) was predicted to happen in 2017 has started as of 2010.


5 posted on 03/30/2012 5:03:35 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: quesney

HA HA...Canada wants to balance the budget by 2016. Silly country still using those old-fashioned things called ‘budgets’...why don’t those old stodgy loser countries stop using their tired, backwards money-management methods that just get in the way of real progress...like in America where we have a limitless credit card and operate on no budget for years!


6 posted on 03/30/2012 5:06:26 AM PDT by erkyl (We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office --Aesop (~550 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quesney

Can a US citizen working in Canada retire and collect Canadian pension?


7 posted on 03/30/2012 5:06:55 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: erkyl

Canada, although it has a AAA rating, does not have an unlimited credit card. The US has a AA rating and a “no limit” card, for now.


8 posted on 03/30/2012 5:10:15 AM PDT by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, we'll just grow algae.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
As it is, the money flow tipping point (whether more money was going into or coming out of the SS fund) was predicted to happen in 2017 has started as of 2010.

My guess as to why the predictions were so wildly off base is that during the recession a lot of people who lost jobs felt they had no recourse other than accept early retirement (age 62-65). We considered it ourselves, but decided to cut our budget a lot and muddle through for another few years until we qualified for full SS. We're glad we did.

9 posted on 03/30/2012 5:16:00 AM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: erkyl

Here in Australia we have a lefty government and even they are yelling at the top of their lungs that come hell or high water, they will deliver a budget surplus next FY.

Like Mark Steyn said, at this point you need to get the wrong people to do the right thing or you are doomed.


10 posted on 03/30/2012 5:24:41 AM PDT by Dundee (They gave up all their tomorrows for our today's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: quesney

Most Canadian government workers retire in their 50’s.


11 posted on 03/30/2012 5:57:53 AM PDT by outpostinmass2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quesney

Most Canadian government workers retire in their 50’s.


12 posted on 03/30/2012 5:57:54 AM PDT by outpostinmass2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

“It needs to be raised to about 75”

Do you seriously think people will be capable of doing their jobs when they are in their seventies? I retired at 61 because after 45 years of looking into a microscope my eyes were shot and I was unable to see important elements in the specimens I was examining. My fear of making an incorrect diagnosis was greater than my fear of having a dramatic shift in my income.

While 75 sounds like a nice number to aim for I am not sure that it is realistic. By the way if I had tried to apply for disability I would have received twice as much as my SS payments.


13 posted on 03/30/2012 6:07:24 AM PDT by heylady (“Sometimes I wish I could be a Democrat and then I remember I have a soul.”( Deb))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: heylady
there's people who get fat pensions from their govt job and retire early and sometimes they seem to always be the ones criticizing getting SS at age 62...

I have no cushy job...my job is physically and mentally and emotionally draining and I can't see being able to go much after age 62 so I NEED my SS at that age....

its not like we haven't paid for SS.....we've paid 5x over.....

SS disability is really the problem...so much abuse....

14 posted on 03/30/2012 6:22:24 AM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie

The pension payout is based on how much you pay into the CPP plan, either deducted at work or thru self-contribution.

So it depends if you’ve had any CPP contributions made from your Canadian income over the years.


15 posted on 03/30/2012 6:40:57 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: heylady

The actuarial mathematics of Social Security demand one of the following:

1. Raising the age of benefit initiation to the median life expectancy of the age cohort retiring, or

2. Means testing benefits.

When 65 was chosen as the “retirement age,” it was the median life expectancy of males in the 1930’s. Let me translate that mathematical jargon for you:

The government expected that, of people eligible to collect Social Security payments, HALF WOULD BE ALREADY DEAD.

That’s how the actuarial mathematics worked back then.

As life expectancy has rapidly increased due to increases in health care and nutrition, the SS system’s mathematics have become completely unsustainable. We now have far too many people eligible to collect off the system. Whereas in the early days, there were 17 people paying into it for every person collecting, today there’s about 2.7 people paying in for every person collecting. And that number is going down, leaving a larger and larger burden upon those who are of working age, paying into the system.

The math doesn’t lie. It can’t continue as it is.

The second option, means testing, should be done on a sliding scale, where those who need more, get more, and those who don’t need anything get nothing. This would break the Democrats’ biggest selling point, that ‘everyone who pays in can depend on getting paid!’ and it would devolve into a conventional welfare scheme at that point.

Too many people have believed the lies of the Democrats and RINO’s that SS is a pension. It isn’t. It is a social welfare scheme, and the SCOTUS said so in Flemming v. Nestor, in 1960. There is no pension, there is no property right, there is nothing to prevent the Congress from changing the benefit payout(s) or eliminating them outright.


16 posted on 03/30/2012 6:57:07 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
So it depends if you’ve had any CPP contributions made from your Canadian income over the years.

So the answer is yes. The amount being dependent on your earnings in Canada.
Similar to the US.
correct?

The reason I ask is my contention that SS benefits should only be paid out to US citizens.

17 posted on 03/30/2012 6:58:09 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: outpostinmass2
Most Canadian government workers retire in their 50’s.

I did not even realize that Allegheny County, Pennsylvania was a part of Canada...
18 posted on 03/30/2012 7:09:19 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: heylady
“By the way if I had tried to apply for disability I would have received twice as much as my SS payments.”

The DI part of Social Security is rapidly becoming a massive financial albatross. When the DI rules were relaxed to include a wide range of “mental-health” disabilities, that opened the DI eligibility door to 50-year-old wrench monkeys who were “depressed” because they couldn't find another $80K union job when their plant closed.

19 posted on 03/30/2012 7:24:39 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: heylady
I retired at 61 because after 45 years of looking into a microscope my eyes were shot and I was unable to see important elements in the specimens I was examining. My fear of making an incorrect diagnosis was greater than my fear of having a dramatic shift in my income.

Professional athletes retire earlier than that, my point being that many careers today have a "useful life" shorter than a working life span. For example, the half-life of an engineer's education is estimated at five years.

Can you teach children to read?

20 posted on 03/30/2012 7:33:23 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
Well said dave! Worth repeating

 

The actuarial mathematics of Social Security demand one of the following:

1. Raising the age of benefit initiation to the median life expectancy of the age cohort retiring, or

2. Means testing benefits.

When 65 was chosen as the “retirement age,” it was the median life expectancy of males in the 1930’s. Let me translate that mathematical jargon for you:

The government expected that, of people eligible to collect Social Security payments, HALF WOULD BE ALREADY DEAD.

That’s how the actuarial mathematics worked back then.

As life expectancy has rapidly increased due to increases in health care and nutrition, the SS system’s mathematics have become completely unsustainable. We now have far too many people eligible to collect off the system. Whereas in the early days, there were 17 people paying into it for every person collecting, today there’s about 2.7 people paying in for every person collecting. And that number is going down, leaving a larger and larger burden upon those who are of working age, paying into the system.

The math doesn’t lie. It can’t continue as it is.

The second option, means testing, should be done on a sliding scale, where those who need more, get more, and those who don’t need anything get nothing. This would break the Democrats’ biggest selling point, that ‘everyone who pays in can depend on getting paid!’ and it would devolve into a conventional welfare scheme at that point.

Too many people have believed the lies of the Democrats and RINO’s that SS is a pension. It isn’t. It is a social welfare scheme, and the SCOTUS said so in Flemming v. Nestor, in 1960. There is no pension, there is no property right, there is nothing to prevent the Congress from changing the benefit payout(s) or eliminating them outright.

21 posted on 03/30/2012 8:12:00 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
Means testing benefits

Legally, it's still my money. If I pay more into the pot, I'm entitled to a bigger share of the pot.

Means tested benefits crosses the line from "forced retirement funding" to "full blown socialism"

22 posted on 03/30/2012 8:31:54 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Means tested benefits crosses the line from "forced retirement funding" to "full blown socialism"

It was full-blown socialism from the get-go, since Congress is not obligated to pay out anything, and never was. The benefits have nothing to do with what you pay in.

23 posted on 03/30/2012 8:55:55 AM PDT by thulldud (Is it "alter or abolish" time yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
Canada - where the adult policymakers are. Meanwhile, in the US, in the District of Clowns and Kabuki Bukakke Theater...

There ya go, fixed that - no charge. ;)


You know its lunch time here and I just thought of Nancy Pelosi...now you too have to suffer through that mental image! =P
24 posted on 03/30/2012 9:27:30 AM PDT by battousai (Conservatives are racist? YES, I hate stupid white liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
I agree. But that will not happen until the collapse of SS. The other problem is no company wants a large number of 60 year old people on their health plans. Which is why so many companies desperately want socialized medicine.
25 posted on 03/30/2012 11:15:44 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kidd

No, it is not your money.

By settled law, the money from Social Security taxes goes into the general fund. It is a tax, and was spent shortly after you paid it.

You don’t have any money that is “yours” in SS. The statements you get are what I and every other working person will be expected to pay you from the taxes collected on us.

Legally, it isn’t your money.


26 posted on 03/30/2012 11:21:41 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kidd

Your point is directly addressed by Flemming v. Nestor. You have NO property right. It is not “your money.” You can have NO expectations based upon the amount of money you have paid in.

People, go READ the SCOTUS decision Flemming v. Nestor. It is NOT “your money.” You are paying into a “social insurance” program, and Congress can change the benefits at any time.

And, NB, this SCOTUS decision is from 1960. The truth has been out there for a LONG time. People just don’t want to read what is now the law of the land, and instead, want to believe the fiction from 1935.


27 posted on 03/30/2012 11:33:04 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: heylady

I plan to twiddle bits well into my 70’s.


28 posted on 03/30/2012 12:37:35 PM PDT by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie
The reason I ask is my contention that SS benefits should only be paid out to US citizens.

Then non-citizens shouldn't be required to pay into the fund.

29 posted on 03/30/2012 3:03:36 PM PDT by kanawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: randita
I think you are right. Retirement has been the unnoticed back door out of unemployment status. The fact that so few if any pundits have mentioned it is even more evidence that it is the secret no one wants to talk about, when crowing about the decline in "unemployed."
30 posted on 03/30/2012 7:55:16 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: thulldud
That is correct. Social Security is a statutory program, and the statutes can be changed at will by Congress, any time.

Hypothetically they could cancel the entire shebang tomorrow and keep all the money. Legally.

31 posted on 03/30/2012 8:03:51 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kanawa
Then non-citizens shouldn't be required to pay into the fund.

It's payment for the privileged of working here.

A credit for the money they put into SS can be sent to their country of origin's pension fund.
Or we can say 'thank you'.

One of the reasons neither the dems or repubs want to crack down on illegal immigration is their contribution to SS, etc without having to pay out. Free money into the system.
Of course there is a move afoot to change that. Should we excuse them from contributing? Let them collect?

32 posted on 03/31/2012 5:16:23 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Which is why I don’t expect to receive a penny of SS.

I am near the middle of the Boomer births and I figure the retirees over the next 10 years are going to overwhelm the system unless they dramatically raise the SS collection age. Since they said reform won’t affect thoseover 55 years old (Gee, I just missed!), the next 10 years of increased demand for SS benefits will overwhelm the ability of the government to pay it.

They will reserve SS payments for the destitute elderly. Those of us that aren’t broke are not going to get much if anything. Those doing well are certain to get nothing from SS.


33 posted on 04/01/2012 2:40:55 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson