Pension Reduction Et Al- Merged

[GAP]

Motion to improve veterans' pensions opposed by Tories
Last Updated: Wednesday, November 8, 2006 | 8:12 AM ET CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/08/pension-veterans.html

An NDP motion calling on the federal government to improve pension benefits for military veterans was opposed in the House of Commons by Conservative MPs.

MPs on Tuesday passed the non-binding motion, introduced by the NDP veterans' affairs critic Peter Stoffer four days ahead of national Remembrance Day ceremonies.

However, all Conservative MPs voted against the motion, which means the minority government is unlikely to pass it.

The NDP proposal would reduce the amount of money Ottawa claws back from veterans' pensions when their Canada Pension or Old Age Security kicks in, as well as extend survivor benefits to spouses who had married older veterans, eliminating the so-called "gold-digger clause."

During the recent federal election campaign, the Conservatives promised changes to the pension plan for veterans, but say they need more time to figure out the best approach.

Stoffer, who introduced the motion, says he's baffled by the government's position.

More on link

 

[xo31@711ret]

Freakin' politicians are all the same, no matter the party: making promises before elected; never keeping 'em after.  :threat:

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.

A good politician under democracy is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.

It is inexcusable for scientists to torture animals; let them make their experiments on journalists and politicians.

Too bad that all the people who really know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair.

Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.

Good thing we've still got politicians -- finest form of free entertainment ever invented.

 

[Wookilar]

No, sorry, I don't buy your argument.

The only way the NDP would put forward a bill to help out Vets would be if they knew it would be voted down by the Conservatives. It is just the NDP making political hay on the backs of our Vets (and us) once again. Mr. Stoffer aside, how many NDP'ers give a darn? White poppies my as@ (and yes I know that it's not the NDP pushing them, same mentality though).

The Conservatives have put a lot of new money (as opposed to commitments made before they came to power) into Vet programs and the military in general.

You may not like the manner in which they have introduced that money, or the details on how it will be dispursed (they are, afterall, conservative), but you can't say that the Conservatives are afraid of spending money on any part of the military.

edit: for spelling names right

 

[Boxkicker]

Well said Wookilar, in the 21 years I have been in the NDP has never cared for us or the VETS of this country. It is just another game the oppositon is playing to say oh look at the big bad Tories.

 

[the 48th regulator]

No, sorry, I don't buy your argument.

The only way the NDP would put forward a bill to help out Vets would be if they knew it would be voted down by the Conservatives. It is just the NDP making political hay on the backs of our Vets (and us) once again. Mr. Stoffer aside, how many NDP'ers give a darn? White poppies my as@ (and yes I know that it's not the NDP pushing them, same mentality though).

The Conservatives have put a lot of new money (as opposed to commitments made before they came to power) into Vet programs and the military in general.

You may not like the manner in which they have introduced that money, or the details on how it will be dispursed (they are, afterall, conservative), but you can't say that the Conservatives are afraid of spending money on any part of the military.

edit: for spelling names right

I agree with your statement regarding the NDP, and I agree with the Conservatives move to block it, as there is no reason to rush anything.  However, I would be interested in seeing where and how the Conservatives have pumped new money in to Veteran Programs.

Does anyone have links or documentation?

dileas

tess

 

[Edward Campbell]

I would not be so quick to impugn Peter Stoffer’s motives.  He represents a constituency with a large retired military population base and he has, in the passed, displayed a strong and sympathetic interest in veterans’ issues.

I think we will see the desired changes to the CFSA/CPP arrangement, but not until we see a whole package of budget proposals in the spring.

I guess that PM Harper said to Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch, a few months back: “Mr. Lynch, I want to cut taxes – most taxes – deeply and in a measurable, and highly visible way.”  Kevin Lynch might have responded: “Good for you, Prime Minister; Canadians, individually and in businesses, are overtaxed; we see that every time a Finance Minister announces that we have a too large surplus.  It will be most desirable to package a range of tax changes which can be seen to clearly benefit most Canadians – with special attention to the increasingly hard pressed middle class, seniors and pensioners, farmers and the working poor.  It will be important to lower corporate taxes, albeit far, far less visibly, so that we can grow our economy and, over time, pay for those tax cuts.  I recommend you announce the package in an early 2007 budget.  With luck it will pass before you go to a general election.  Until then I would be grateful if you would restrain spending so that the officials in Finance can make a sound plan, without worrying about a string of uncoordinated spending announcements.”

If that guesstimate is somewhere close to being accurate then it is not surprising that, in caucus, Harper might have said, to all Tory MPs: “Early next year I’m going to give you an election winning budget – a budget with something for everyone.  I plan to pass it and then engineer our defeat and a general election.  I think it, along with some money for everybody but Newfoundland to address fiscal imbalance will overwhelm Afghanistan, income trusts and some of your antediluvian views on same-sex marriage and the like.  Until then we must keep our heads down, do little to avoid doing something wrong.  Unfortunately that means that we must ignore another promise – this one to veterans regarding their pension clawbacks.  We will fix that in the budget – you will not face a swarm of angry, red faced, bemedalled veterans every time you address a crowd.  Be patient.”

 

[Reccesoldier]

I think the rub here is bound to hinge on definitions.  What defines a Veteran?

Is it anyone who ever served in the military?
Is it only those who took part in a declared war?
What about all of us who were "peacekeepers"?

In the broadest term this proposal would affect a whole lot of people, at it's narrowest, not so many.

There is a saying, "Fools rush in"

The NDP is once again talking out of their collective nether regions, with no prospect of forming a government or being held accountable for anything they propose, they find it very easy indeed to spend our taxes like drunken socialists and castigate the government dor not doing the same.

 

[the 48th regulator]

I think the rub here is bound to hinge on definitions.  What defines a Veteran?

Is it anyone who ever served in the military?
Is it only those who took part in a declared war?
What about all of us who were "peacekeepers"?

In the broadest term this proposal would affect a whole lot of people, at it's narrowest, not so many.

There is a saying, "Fools rush in"

The NDP is once again talking out of their collective nether regions, with no prospect of forming a government or being held accountable for anything they propose, they find it very easy indeed to spend our taxes like drunken socialists and castigate the government dor not doing the same.

Which is something we have definately gone into in great deal of depth here

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29033.0

dileas

tess

 

[Burke69]

I am a strong conservative member and my dad is a 23 year military veteran and also a conservative.

I agree with what the conservatives are doing and they have been putting lots of money towards military funding. They have put billions of dollars towards new transport aircraft and more money towards APC's. I respect the NDP for putting forward the motion, but I think it can wait. I would definitely not say that the conservatives are afraid to spend money on the military.

 

[dapaterson]

Sigh.  Let's be clear:  if the benefits are to be increased, member contributions will increase.  Current contributions pay for part of the plan as it is currently constituted.  Incerasing payouts means members will pay more (CF pensions are already heavily weighted towards the employer vice the contributor in terms of paying into the plan).

I'm already paying more into CPP and will draw out less because earlier generations refused to fund the CPP adequately for the benefits they now draw.  Are we now going to do the same to serving soldiers - increase the payments they must make, to provide increased benefits to others who served before, whose payments did not cover the cost?

The pension rules and regulations are out there in plain black and white for anyone to read.  People who get out and only then investigate what their benefits will be, and then begin caterwaulling about the injustice have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[Trinity]

Patterson

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[284_226]

Sigh.  Let's be clear:  if the benefits are to be increased, member contributions will increase.  Current contributions pay for part of the plan as it is currently constituted.  Incerasing payouts means members will pay more (CF pensions are already heavily weighted towards the employer vice the contributor in terms of paying into the plan).

But according to http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dpsp/engraph/faq_e.asp, our CFSA contribution rates are increasing from 4% of income below $41,100 and 7.5% of the amount over $41,100, to 6.4% and 8.4% respectively over the next seven years.  Paying more, receiving the same - doesn't sound right to me.

I'm already paying more into CPP and will draw out less because earlier generations refused to fund the CPP adequately for the benefits they now draw.  Are we now going to do the same to serving soldiers - increase the payments they must make, to provide increased benefits to others who served before, whose payments did not cover the cost?

We're already paying more, as shown above.  If there are no improvements to the pension payouts, then we're still paying more and receiving the same.

I do think it's kind of funny that DND actually made mention of the C-78 court challenge on the webpage I quoted:

Q11. The government has taken huge amounts of pension surplus out of the pension plans the last few years. Why didn’t they use some of the surplus to make up the shortage of contributions instead of asking us to pay more?

The issue of the management of the pension plan surplus is now before the courts and it would be inappropriate, pending a final decision, to comment.

The amount was about $30 Billion, out of the Canadian Forces Superannuation, Public Service Superannuation, and RCMP Superannuation accounts.

 

[dapaterson]

Yes, and following those increases CFSA contributors will still be underwriting less than half the cost of the pensions - a pretty sweet deal.  Contributions will be increased on earnings above the CPP limit only (an amount that is indexed, as I recall).  Contributors will be paying a more reasonable portion of the cost of the plan - as a taxpayer, I approve of that.

The CFSA provides a defined benefit.  The Crown is liable for any shortfalls in the plan.  As long as the Crown maintains that responsibility, I have no real heartache with them taking surpluses.

 

[284_226]

Yes, and following those increases CFSA contributors will still be underwriting less than half the cost of the pensions - a pretty sweet deal.  Contributions will be increased on earnings above the CPP limit only (an amount that is indexed, as I recall).  Contributors will be paying a more reasonable portion of the cost of the plan - as a taxpayer, I approve of that.

I'm not quite sure what you mean.  According to the link I provided, employee contributions will be increased on the amount below the CPP limit, and increased to a lesser extent on the amount above the limit.  How does indexing fit into the picture?

The CFSA provides a defined benefit.  The Crown is liable for any shortfalls in the plan.  As long as the Crown maintains that responsibility, I have no real heartache with them taking surpluses.

That's true - they're liable for shortfalls.  However, since there was never really a CFSA "account" that employees and DND were paying into, any deficit (like the $13 Billion deficit in 1987) was merely a "virtual" deficit - employees continued to contribute, and pension cheques kept being sent out.  I liken it to the pensions being paid out of the General Revenues account for Canada.

The problem with the surplus is that contribution rates remained constant even when it became clear that the surplus was growing out of hand.  Instead of reducing contribution rates for the employee/employer, or providing a contribution holiday, or improving the defined benefit - the government did nothing.  As I see it, at least a portion of the surplus should have deemed to be to the employee's credit, the disposition of which to be decided by someone with more bean-counting knowledge than I.

It's a complex issue, and I can only look at it for so long before my brain hurts - but evidently the courts see some merit in it because the case is still ongoing.

 

[observor 69]

Introduction of Bill C-221 on 20 April 2006

More info on efforts to eliminate the reduction of CFSA at 65.

http://www.rcl632.com/activities/CFSA%20CLAW%20BACK.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further info :

Bill C-221 has only received first reading, a pro forma stage. Mr. Stoffer has
introduced about 25 bills and has 11 motions on the Order Paper; he will only
get to have one of these debated, providing the 39th Parliament lasts long
enough. He is 68 places from the top of the "List for the Consideration of
Private Members' Business," so that means about a year's worth of sittings
before he gets a sniff at getting anything read a second time. This is a
minority parliament, so you can probably guess as rationally as I whether or
not it will ever be read three times in both Houses, receive Royal Assent and
be proclaimed.

 

[Redeye]

Good luck with that.  The CFSA is an integrated pension like most pensions in Canada.  The formula is designed to fund only that part of the total benefit not paid out by CPP.  If the pension in made into a "regular" or non-integrated pension, then the member contributions will simply increase to account for the additional benefit being paid out.

 

[aesop081]

Just got this via email:

Military/RCMP Pensioners
Against
Benefit Reduction at age 65


To our Supporters:



November 26, 2006



I regret to inform our supporters, since I no longer have the support of the Committee, that I am now taking action to close down the web site and therefore terminating the Mission.



I view this initiative as a great success and not a failure. The Mission has accumulated the support of over 83,000 supporters. Numerous Associations and Veterans from England, Mexico, Germany, CYQQ Forces, Florida, Warsaw Poland, Syrian Arab Republic, Greece, UK, USA, Cayman Island, Afghanistan, South Africa, Iraq, Thailand, Sarajavo Bosnia, Italy, and Japan have pronounced their support of the Mission.



The NDP determination to introduce to the House of Commons a 5 points motion on November 2, 2006 was contrary to our written objection, Bill C-221 and our Mission. The omission of RCMP Veterans from the motion was simply not acceptable to me. Mr Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP failed to fulfil his written promise to our supporters to have Bill C-221 voted on during the fall session of Parliament as requested. I firmly believe that the Mission is no longer attainable under an NDP banner.



The most valuable contributions made by Roger Boutin and Mel Pittman shall always be remembered as second to none. For almost 2 years they have generously given of their time, talent, and have also financially contributed towards the initiative. I would never be able to express in word my gratitude and sincere appreciation. I’ll simply say thank you. The Web site was prepared and maintained by Mel Pittman, it is simply extraordinaire.



I shall forever be grateful to the 37 most Senior Retired Leaders whom have endorsed the Mission. Your written pronounced support of the initiative was indeed very much appreciated by me the team and our supporters.



In closing I wish to say thank you to the numerous Veterans Associations and of course our supporters for your major contributions towards our success. We should now pass the torch and join force and support The Royal Canadian Legion Calais Branch 162 resolution that was unanimously adopted at a convention of the Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion. I firmly believe that to succeed the resolution will require the support of a major Political Party.



As Veterans we want our Golden Years Financial Dignity restored, we paid for it! “CFSA surplus 15.6 billions dollars, Employment insurance surplus 46.5 billion dollars, CPP benefits surplus 98 billion dollars.”



Sincerely,



John



John Labelle

florencejohn@ns.sympatico.ca

 

[Garett]

My dad just turned 60 and he's taking two months off work to start drawing CPP early since it gets reduced at 65 due to his military pension.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Sorry folks but lots of us are in the same boat,...guess what,.....thats life.  You want more, pay more or buy a very large house, use it as principle residence and sell it on retirement and move into a smaller abode.

Spend that cash as you wish as it doesn't effect the clawback.......

 

[Redeye]

My dad just turned 60 and he's taking two months off work to start drawing CPP early since it gets reduced at 65 due to his military pension.

Has he talked to a financial advisor about the implications of drawing CPP early?  If he starts drawing at 60 he's basically going to get 30% less CPP than he would be entitled to at 65.  In theory at least, the CPP he draws should replace the pension benefit reduction he gets at 65.