[Northern Light]

My parents are facing retirement and they've had the privilege of earning over $150,000 in household income for the later parts of their careers.

If you took away anything from their pension, then they would be forced to abandon their mortgage, sell their property, and leave Canada in their retirement due to the high cost of living here. They are already considering it regardless because they would just be scraping by with their pension. Unlike multi-generational Canadians who inherited housing and had the ability to save wealth over a long career instead of needing to put everything into education and mortgages, retirement looks quite desperate, and is in part dependent on my ability to support them financially at some point.

My parents are now deceased by several years.........I inherited nothing from one, a a modest sum from the other.

Neither ever owned a house.

So I am sympathetic, to a point................I won't dissect whether your parents over extended themselves on their mortgage.

However, there are definitely people in far worse positions. My mother worked from 16-66........my dad even longer.

Neither ever relied on the State for income (pre-retirement), the idea that folks with over $100,000 in household income require subsidy from the state to retire.....

Where low income people are expected to subsist entirely on ~$2,000 per month.......as a single person..............

I am sympathetic to people in even worse positions but this to me calls for UBC rather than taking away from other folks who planned for and around receiving $x in their retirement.

I didn't advocate for removing anyone's CPP or private savings, the money you actually put aside. Raising the retirement age and reinvesting those savings as higher benefits gives people back the same money over fewer years, such that its more generous.

OAS/GIS are essentially Universal income. But they aren't paid into; and they pay out in the case of the former, the same for someone earner 40k pot-retirement and 70k and it doesn't go to zero unto over 140k.

In the case of the latter, the max income isn't even subsistence.

(and as a younger person, I am already assuming that the entire pension ponzi scheme will collapse long before I am ever see a penny of it, though I am certain I will spend the majority of my career paying for other people's pensions regardless...)

The CPP is not a ponzi scheme, its in surplus.

OAS/GIS is funded out of general revenue and will peak int the next few years, it will strain the treasury because people get it too early.

If you have had to work as many years as my mother, to get CPP, (50), assuming you started paying in on graduation from University (in a real way) .....at.... 22....you would have to work until 72........ just saying.

 

[afransen]

The only reason CPP could conceivably run into trouble is if lifespans increase meaningfully more than projected and no moves are made to adjust eligibility age. CPP is way ahead of plan in terms of accumulating assets required for sustainability. We may eventually start to have conversations about reducing contributions if accumulation continues to run so far ahead of plan.

 

[Northern Light]

The only reason CPP could conceivably run into trouble is if lifespans increase meaningfully more than projected and no moves are made to adjust eligibility age.

We should do this anyway, but reinvest the savings in a higher income replacement rate. This then automatically reduces the amount we spend on OAS and GIS which are not funded by a trust account but by annual parliamentary appropriations.

CPP is way ahead of plan in terms of accumulating assets required for sustainability. We may eventually start to have conversations about reducing contributions if accumulation continues to run so far ahead of plan.

Or we could increase the payouts.

The current round of changes, when fully implemented give CPP 33% income replacement.

That's among the more paltry in the OECD.

If we had a retirement age of 70 and reinvested the direct savings in higher payouts, the replacement rate would be 46% before factoring in OAS.

If we were were able to safely channel some surplus back, we might even hit 50%.

We can then claw back OAS from high earners, but add to the money we give low/middle earners under OAS, so that most end up with 70% income replacement pre-GIS.

 

[afransen]

We should do this anyway, but reinvest the savings in a higher income replacement rate. This then automatically reduces the amount we spend on OAS and GIS which are not funded by a trust account but by annual parliamentary appropriations.



Or we could increase the payouts.

The current found of changes, when fully implemented give CPP 33% income replacement.

That's among the more paltry in the OECD.

If we had a retirement age of 70 and reinvested the direct savings in higher payouts, the replacement rate would be 46% before factoring in OAS.

If we were were able to safely channel some surplus back, we might even hit 50%.

We can then claw back OAS from high earners, but add to the money we give low/middle earners under OAS, so that most end up with 70% income replacement pre-GIS.

I'm generally opposed to increased benefits if it will flow to boomers who massively undercontributed and mismanaged the fund. I am going to pay 10% of income for my entire career for a '6% of income pension' because of it.

We won't be able to boost CPP enough to trigger clawback for OAS. We just need to reform OAS directly.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm generally opposed to increased benefits if it will flow to boomers who massively undercontributed and mismanaged the fund. I am going to pay 10% of income for my entire career for a '6% of income pension' because of it.

CPP's big increase in contribution rates was approved and began implementation in 1997, and was fully implemented in 2003.

The current median age of a baby boomer (born 1946 to 1964) is 65, so they were (median) 37 when that decision was taken.

While they certainly would have benefited from the lower contribution rates, I would suspect it was the previous generation that was responsible for the too-low rate initially, and quite probably for the decision to change that.

The median age 'boomer' will have paid the full, enhanced rate for 22 years, out of probable work career of 43 years. (assuming workforce entry at 22, and exit at 65)

The last of the boomers (youngest) is only 59 this year, will have paid the full rate for 28 years.

Not sure I see any point in holding a generational grudge based on the above.

We won't be able to boost CPP enough to trigger clawback for OAS. We just need to reform OAS directly.

I 100% agree on the latter, and explicitly advocated for same in my post.

I was simply noting that increased pension income is partially offset by clawbacks in OAS and GIS. Which is indeed the case.

 

[afransen]

CPP's big increase in contribution rates was approved and began implementation in 1997, and was fully implemented in 2003.

The current median age of a baby boomer (born 1946 to 1964) is 65, so they were (median) 37 when that decision was taken.

While they certainly would have benefited from the lower contribution rates, I would suspect it was the previous generation that was responsible for the too-low rate initially, and quite probably for the decision to change that.

The median age 'boomer' will have paid the full, enhanced rate for 22 years, out of probable work career of 43 years. (assuming workforce entry at 22, and exit at 65)

The last of the boomers (youngest) is only 59 this year, will have paid the full rate for 28 years.

Not sure I see any point in holding a generational grudge based on the above.



I 100% agree on the latter, and explicitly advocated for same in my post.

I was simply noting that increased pension income is partially offset by clawbacks in OAS and GIS. Which is indeed the case.

I grew up under Boomer austerity (Harris, Chretien/Martin, Harper) and their disinvestment in infrastructure (near zero investment in transit for 30 years) and inflation of an asset bubble in housing. I think they took very good care of themselves. No additional help is needed, especially if it comes at the expense of later generations.

 

[Northern Light]

I grew up under Boomer austerity (Harris, Chretien/Martin, Harper) and their disinvestment in infrastructure (near zero investment in transit for 30 years) and inflation of an asset bubble in housing. I think they took very good care of themselves. No additional help is needed, especially if it comes at the expense of later generations.

Hold on.....

Paul Martin was born in 1938, he was not a boomer.

Jean Chretien was born in 1934, he was not a boomer.

Mike Harris was born in 1945, one year too early to be a boomer.

Of those you named only Harper was boomer.

I'm not a boomer (born in the 70s) .....

I just don't get the hatred thing, particularly, when I noted above you seem to be bit confused on who is/was a boomer.

PS, those born from 1928-1945 are actually referred to as the 'Silent Generation'.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hold on.....

Paul Martin was born in 1938, he was not a boomer.

Jean Chretien was born in 1934, he was not a boomer.

Mike Harris was born in 1945, one year too early to be a boomer.

Of those you named only Harper was boomer.

I'm not a boomer (born in the 70s) .....

I just don't get the hatred thing, particularly, when I noted above you seem to be bit confused on who is/was a boomer.

PS, those born from 1928-1945 are actually referred to as the 'Silent Generation'.

No but the electoral power that drove them to victory are based on boomers.

AoD

 

[afransen]

Hold on.....

Paul Martin was born in 1938, he was not a boomer.

Jean Chretien was born in 1934, he was not a boomer.

Mike Harris was born in 1945, one year too early to be a boomer.

Of those you named only Harper was boomer.

I'm not a boomer (born in the 70s) .....

I just don't get the hatred thing, particularly, when I noted above you seem to be bit confused on who is/was a boomer.

PS, those born from 1928-1945 are actually referred to as the 'Silent Generation'.

Boomers elected those governments.

 

[Northern Light]

I was trying hard to think of a nice way to do this.........but I can't.

Best I can say is this. Thoughtless bashing of any demographic by way of dubious generalization doesn't work for me.

Its not the type of post I expect here at UT, where I prefer to see evidence-based posts.

I will accordingly leave the thread to those of you wish to do something other than discuss public policy thoughtfully.

 

[lenaitch]

If we delve into history, we would probably find that every generation blamed its predecessors for all the worlds problems present at the time, but it is also completely pointless. The generations currently trying to deal with adulthood, the economy, housing, etc. would no doubt like their elders to float away on an ice floe and 'make way' for them, but a reminder that that could easily included Gen X as well.

I'm a Boomer, and I suppose we could have whined that our elders brought us the Cold War, the nuclear arms race, Thalidomide, and a whole host of other ills, but we didn't; primarily because we recognized that it was pointless (without realizing it) and we lacked the platforms on which to whine. We didn't have social media platforms, the foundations of which, by the way, were brought to you by those that have gone before us.

 

[afransen]

If we delve into history, we would probably find that every generation blamed its predecessors for all the worlds problems present at the time, but it is also completely pointless. The generations currently trying to deal with adulthood, the economy, housing, etc. would no doubt like their elders to float away on an ice floe and 'make way' for them, but a reminder that that could easily included Gen X as well.

I'm a Boomer, and I suppose we could have whined that our elders brought us the Cold War, the nuclear arms race, Thalidomide, and a whole host of other ills, but we didn't; primarily because we recognized that it was pointless (without realizing it) and we lacked the platforms on which to whine. We didn't have social media platforms, the foundations of which, by the way, were brought to you by those that have gone before us.

I don't see it as whining to assert that generational fairness does not indicate we should be allocating yet more resources to the current boomers. I've made my peace with the fact I will pay 10% of income for a 6% of income pension for my entire career. If there is any surplus in CPP, I think it should first and foremost go to returning contributions to an actuarially fair level. I suppose that could mean increasing benefits, but that should accrue gradually over time, and not as a windfall for those who paid in relatively little to the CPP. I'd rather the benefit go to Zoomers than Boomers, but realistically it's lessening the disadvantage faced by the Zoomers.

Some folks may forget, but up until 1996, contribution rates were a combined 3.6%. People who worked prior to 1996 are enjoying benefits that people who only worked after 2003 paid a combined 10% of income for. My sensitivity on this topic is not out of nowhere. I have heard more than one retiree lustily eye the growing CPP fund and make noises about benefits increases or even one time payouts. No thanks.

Canada Pension Plan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jonny5]

I don't see it as whining to assert that generational fairness does not indicate we should be allocating yet more resources to the current boomers. I've made my peace with the fact I will pay 10% of income for a 6% of income pension for my entire career. If there is any surplus in CPP, I think it should first and foremost go to returning contributions to an actuarially fair level. I suppose that could mean increasing benefits, but that should accrue gradually over time, and not as a windfall for those who paid in relatively little to the CPP. I'd rather the benefit go to Zoomers than Boomers, but realistically it's lessening the disadvantage faced by the Zoomers.

Some folks may forget, but up until 1996, contribution rates were a combined 3.6%. People who worked prior to 1996 are enjoying benefits that people who only worked after 2003 paid a combined 10% of income for. My sensitivity on this topic is not out of nowhere. I have heard more than one retiree lustily eye the growing CPP fund and make noises about benefits increases or even one time payouts. No thanks.

Canada Pension Plan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The growth of the CPP assets has been driven largely by the compounding of its investment income and capital gains, not by incoming benefit flows. You are not paying to get less, you are paying to get even more later. Indeed they are increasing benefits, I know seeing the "CCP2" deduction on my pay stub for tomorrow.

 

[afransen]

The growth of the CPP assets has been driven largely by the compounding of its investment income and capital gains, not by incoming benefit flows. You are not paying to get less, you are paying to get even more later. Indeed they are increasing benefits, I know seeing the "CCP2" deduction on my pay stub for tomorrow.

CPP2 is a separate scheme, and a separate fund. The base CPP currently carries contributions of 9.9%, which was previously 3.6% until the 90s.

 

[AlbertC]

Thousands of young Torontonians struggling to find work were surveyed about their experiences. Here is what they said

Toronto’s young people are struggling to gain access to meaningful, gainful employment, say those behind a city-wide postcard initiative that surveyed more than 7,000 students.

www.ctvnews.ca

Toronto’s young people are struggling to gain access to meaningful, gainful employment, say those behind a city-wide postcard initiative that surveyed more than 7,000 students.

Today, youth, community, and civic leaders gathered at Toronto City Hall to officially launch the Toronto Youth Employment Postcard Report, which is the culmination of a year-long campaign that has mobilized youth from every city ward and close to 100 sector partners.

Those behind the initiative say their efforts helped secure Toronto City Council’s approval this past February of a motion to create 10,000 additional youth jobs by the summer of 2026 through a Toronto Youth Employment Program. The push continues for this program to come to fruition.

The youth-driven policy document, which was developed by The Neighbourhood Group Community Services in collaboration with youth leaders, reiterates their calls for “bold investments in youth employment as a pathway to address both economic insecurity and rising youth violence.”

“The need for such a Toronto youth employment program has been a growing concern among the youth in our city for many years,” Laura Vu, the Toronto Youth Cabinet’s equity and employment lead, said during a news conference.

“Throughout my involvement with this campaign, I have had the opportunity to engage with young people across the city on their experiences with employment. We collected thousands of postcards, each detailing a young person’s challenges and barriers towards employment, but also their hopes and dreams.”

Ontario’s unemployment rate among those 15 to 24 years old hit 15.8 per cent in June, which was approximately double the overall unemployment rate in the province, according to Statistics Canada data.

Vu said among the personal experiences shared in the postcard campaign, several participants outlined the challenges they’ve faced in securing a job with many applications made and few responses received.

‐--------
Toronto City Council set to revisit the 10,000 youth jobs motion this fall.

Statistics Canada has said that they youth unemployment rate remains significantly above the pre-pandemic average of 10.8 per cent recorded between 2017 and 2019.

Last month, the Canadian National Exhibition said that it received 54,000 online applications for 5,000 temporary positions.