2023 UCP Alberta election

[Good2Golf]

Basic organizational/ business principles. More separate programs to deliver the same service equals more overhead, more processes, more processing.

So no actuarial proof, just an assumption that bigger = more efficient.

 

[QV]

So no actuarial proof, just an assumption that bigger = more efficient.

Which if you have any experience in the federal public service you know this is rarely the case.

 

[IKnowNothing]

So no actuarial proof, just an assumption that bigger = more efficient.

More "x"PP's is actually bigger government, with more rice bowls, more bureaucratic bloat.

 

[Kirkhill]

A useful exercise for determining fair present valuation of Alberta’s contributions might be to assess CPP as if each and every province were all to withdraw simultaneously, and each had to be paid out. That would allow for a determination of a fair and proportionate value in a way that’s inherently logical and defensible.

Come up with that number and put that out there for consideration. Alberta has every right to pursue this, but everyone needs to disengage from fantasy and ensure that whatever results equally protects the value of these investments for all Canadians. Otherwise we could conceivably see exactly that- a sudden dissolution of CPP as provinces all race to get out at once, lest their residents lose out excessively on the value of their public pension contributions.

But is that fair if everyone has not contributed equally?

Fairness, in my view would reflect people getting in proportion to their giving.

 

[brihard]

But is that fair if everyone has not contributed equally?

Fairness, in my view would reflect people getting in proportion to their giving.

Individuals do and have. That’s literally how CPP works. Yearly Maximum Pensionable Earnings, and annual benefits are both capped, with the latter derived from the former. The question at hand is the division of plan assets in the event of a wholesale withdrawal of a province, and that’s much messier. But that’s precisely the math I’m saying should get done.

 

[Kirkhill]

Danielle has already won two points.

It is now accepted that Alberta is legally able to withdraw from the fund with a sizeable pot.

It is further evidence of the importance of the Alberta economy in general, and the oil and gas industry in particular, to the Canadian economy and its fortunes.

The goose with the golden eggs lives in Alberta.

Does it make any kind of sense to kill that goose just because it doesn't live east of the Ottawa?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Individuals do and have. That’s literally how CPP works. Yearly Maximum Pensionable Earnings, and annual benefits are both capped, with the latter derived from the former. The question at hand is the division of plan assets in the event of a wholesale withdrawal of a province, and that’s much messier. But that’s precisely the math I’m saying should get done.

Are you able to draw CPP if you have never, or very little, contributed to it ? Honest question.

 

[Good2Golf]

Are you able to draw CPP if you have never, or very little, contributed to it ? Honest question.

It tracks how much you’ve contributed over your working/contributing time. If a Canadian (or Quebecet) makes more than $3,500, they have to contribute. The income made later in life upon claiming CPP (or QPP) is proportional to their contributions.

Contributions to the Canada Pension Plan - Canada.ca

Canada Pension Plan

www.canada.ca

 

[IKnowNothing]

Fairness, in my view would reflect people getting in proportion to their giving.

That statement would seem to put you in line the with CPPIB/ Tombe view of fairness, as ~16% of contributions yielding 53% of assets in no way proportional.

 

[brihard]

Are you able to draw CPP if you have never, or very little, contributed to it ? Honest question.

Basically no. It’s not welfare; benefits are derived from contributions. If you contributed very little you’ll receive very little. Any of us can sign in to a My Service Canada Account and see a breakdown of our contributions and expected benefits.

CPP and QPP have an agreement to cover benefits for someone who paid into one but retires in the coverage of the other.

 

[Kirkhill]

That statement would seem to put you in line the with CPPIB/ Tombe view of fairness, as ~16% of contributions yielding 53% of assets in no way proportional.

See. You have agreed there are reasonable grounds for negotiations.

My slide rule vs your calculator.

 

[dapaterson]

Are you able to draw CPP if you have never, or very little, contributed to it ? Honest question.

There are other income supports for seniors as well - GIS and OAS come to mind as federal programs, tax supported.

 

[IKnowNothing]

See. You have agreed there are reasonable grounds for negotiations.

I have never disputed that there isn't. My tone in this thread has been a reaction to the Smith approach/ Lifeworks report rather than the concept of an APP itself.

Realistically I think concept of a properly implemented APP is a benign waste in the long term. Frustratingly inconvenient as an employer, but realistically the impact to me as a citizen will be nil. Albertan employees get a slight premium break in the short term, but unless there's a follow up plan for all the current high earners to die young, they're going to be owed their benefits, and the model will change. See Quebec.

If Smith had come in looking to have a serious discussion with a plan proposing a reasonable asset transfer, proper contribution safety margins, a concrete plan to account for out of province residents that contributed via Alberta employment etc. etc., and put forward a good faith stakeholder engagement process based on the benefits and potential risks of that? I likely wouldn't have much to say - see para 2.

But that isn't the approach she took.

I'll repeat my ideal 4 point COA from the GoC perspective

• Give Albertans an asset transfer number
• explain the failings/risks in the Smith pitch, (ignoring non-resident liability, assuming the current minimum contribution rate rather than keeping a margin of safety, worries about portability)
• give Alberta an opportunity to go to Albertan's with a realistic, responsible plan.
• Let Albertan's decide if the juice is worth the squeeze

 

[Brad Sallows]

It tracks how much you’ve contributed over your working/contributing time. If a Canadian (or Quebecet) makes more than $3,500, they have to contribute. The income made later in life upon claiming CPP (or QPP) is proportional to their contributions.

If you're one of the early recipients; yes, you draw benefits out of proportion to your contributions.

 

[brihard]

If you're one of the early recipients; yes, you draw benefits out of proportion to your contributions.

As in taking CPP at the early reduced rate? There’s a pretty significant penalty to taking CPP early- 7.2% per year early you take it. It only really works out to your advantage if you figure you’ll die (relatively) early. And if you do die early, the overall fund is lying you out for less time and probably coming out ahead. Regardless, the actuaries have all of that factored in.

 

[IKnowNothing]

As in taking CPP at the early reduced rate? There’s a pretty significant penalty to taking CPP early- 7.2% per year early you take it. It only really works out to your advantage if you figure you’ll die (relatively) early. And if you do die early, the overall fund is lying you out for less time and probably coming out ahead. Regardless, the actuaries have all of that factored in.

No, the people that retired closer to the inception of the program starting receiving benefits with fewer years to contribute, and had a more favourable formula- less years for maximum. The personal rates of return for early contributors were awesome.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have never disputed that there isn't. My tone in this thread has been a reaction to the Smith approach/ Lifeworks report rather than the concept of an APP itself.

Realistically I think concept of a properly implemented APP is a benign waste in the long term. Frustratingly inconvenient as an employer, but realistically the impact to me as a citizen will be nil. Albertan employees get a slight premium break in the short term, but unless there's a follow up plan for all the current high earners to die young, they're going to be owed their benefits, and the model will change. See Quebec.

If Smith had come in looking to have a serious discussion with a plan proposing a reasonable asset transfer, proper contribution safety margins, a concrete plan to account for out of province residents that contributed via Alberta employment etc. etc., and put forward a good faith stakeholder engagement process based on the benefits and potential risks of that? I likely wouldn't have much to say - see para 2.

But that isn't the approach she took.

I'll repeat my ideal 4 point COA from the GoC perspective

• Give Albertans an asset transfer number
• explain the failings/risks in the Smith pitch, (ignoring non-resident liability, assuming the current minimum contribution rate rather than keeping a margin of safety, worries about portability)
• give Alberta an opportunity to go to Albertan's with a realistic, responsible plan.
• Let Albertan's decide if the juice is worth the squeeze

But she got your attention. In my experience that is the way most negotiations start.

A 2x4 between the eyes.

 

[brihard]

No, the people that retired closer to the inception of the program starting receiving benefits with fewer years to contribute, and had a more favourable formula- less years for maximum. The personal rates of return for early contributors were awesome.

Ah, ok, gotcha.

 

[Brad Sallows]

As in taking CPP at the early reduced rate?

No, as in the first people to start drawing CPP got a really good deal.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I have never disputed that there isn't. My tone in this thread has been a reaction to the Smith approach/ Lifeworks report rather than the concept of an APP itself.

Realistically I think concept of a properly implemented APP is a benign waste in the long term. Frustratingly inconvenient as an employer, but realistically the impact to me as a citizen will be nil. Albertan employees get a slight premium break in the short term, but unless there's a follow up plan for all the current high earners to die young, they're going to be owed their benefits, and the model will change. See Quebec.

If Smith had come in looking to have a serious discussion with a plan proposing a reasonable asset transfer, proper contribution safety margins, a concrete plan to account for out of province residents that contributed via Alberta employment etc. etc., and put forward a good faith stakeholder engagement process based on the benefits and potential risks of that? I likely wouldn't have much to say - see para 2.

But that isn't the approach she took.

I'll repeat my ideal 4 point COA from the GoC perspective

• Give Albertans an asset transfer number
• explain the failings/risks in the Smith pitch, (ignoring non-resident liability, assuming the current minimum contribution rate rather than keeping a margin of safety, worries about portability)
• give Alberta an opportunity to go to Albertan's with a realistic, responsible plan.
• Let Albertan's decide if the juice is worth the squeeze

I will once again re-iterate that this is not really about an APP. There is not, at this point, a realistic chance it will see the light of day.

The way I read this, the Alberta Government is putting the Federal Liberals on notice that they are done being treated like a colony: milked for resources, but otherwise treated like crap. However, if the Liberals keep pulling crap like giving free heat pumps and oil heating rebates to Atlantic Canadians (who happen to vote Liberal. And a Liberal cabinet minister is stupid enough to say as much on TV this weekend), Albertans could be convinced to vote for this, even if it hurts everyone, including themselves.

Many people in Alberta (western canada?) are deeply wounded by 8 years of being treated like crap by the Liberals; having their resource industries and jobs under constant threat from their own federal government. The tolerance has worn thin and when that happens, all bets are off.