BILL C-201 RCMP/Military Pensions passes second reading

[Elorajen]

No, he waited until two months before he turned 65 (as he was told to do). He was doing just fine on his pension and his PT job with the commissionaires (where all Soldiers seem to go...).

Ok, I'm just unclear on this issue, and thought that it was unfair in general. I still don't get why some pensioners get reduced benefits once CPP kicks in and others don't. Doesn't seem fair.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Yes it is as that's the plan that was paid into.
Why can't people get that simple formula?

When I walk from my current job I will have the same issue, only I don't think of it as a clawback, I think of it as 5 years of bonus money my plan PLANNED for so I could walk at age 60 before I qualify for the CPP at 65..

 

[Old Sweat]

I was serving when the CPP was instituted. Being in my twenties waay back then, I considered it as another way for the government to tax me, but began to pay more attention as I grew older and maybe a little wiser. Mind you, I also started contributing to a RRSP back then, so maybe I wasn't all that dumb.

However, I understood the rules re CPP and reduction in my CFSA at age 65. Considering that in order to avoid the reduction, I would have had to contributed a few percent more off the top of my pre-tax income for thirty odd years for maybe a couple of hundred bucks more, I have no serious gripes with the current system. As it was I still came out ahead anyway.

 

[antique]

Infanteer,
For more information,please see  http://users.eastlink.ca/~clawback1/.

The matter being that some retired members are seeking the removal of the deduction of the bridge benefit at age 65.That is what is being referred as a CLAWBACK.One must understand that those who were in the military prior to 66, when CPP was introduced,were given NO choice in the integration of CFSA with CPP.Eventually one might have preferred the stacking instead.
In the real wold of today,you end up with a CWO that may end up having a pension that is less than what a private makes today.Mind you that is caused by salaries that were less per pay parades then.Example,I get abut 1400$ per month for a 22 years pension but,my best 5 years average was 19K and change way back when...
You get what you pay for  in all cases.
I am involved in this issue as a matter of principle mainly because the bridge benefit is removed immediately if a member gets CPP disability benefits whatever the age and also because WE did not and to this day DO not have fair representation at barganing tables.
Whatever the outcome it is my deep impression that this issue will never come out of the parliamentary committee..still the battle has brought to light some side issues that need to be fixed.
Just an old guy

 

[dapaterson]

Having read a number of sites with information on this issue, I am struck by the facile tone, the lack of analytical rigour, the convenient overlooking of the fact that service pensions can be payable to someone from their late 30s onwards (though under the new terms, that will be early 40s - 25 years to qualify vice the previous 20).  Compound interest and NPV are concepts that are ignored.

The reduction has never been hidden.  The legislation and its related regulations are public documents. 


My view is simple: It's an attempt to provide a benefit to people who never paid for it, with no logic or reason behind it.  Naturally, it's endorsed by Jack Layton.

 

[Redeye]

That's just it.  The pension is a normal, integrated pension like most private sector defined benefit pensions.  It's reduced at 65 when CPP kicks in because that's the way it was designed, and the contribution formula was designed for that.  If this ridiculous bill passes all that will happen is the contribution amounts for the CFSA will simply rise substantially in order to meet the shortfall that this will create.

The only failure here is by those who failed to research their pension entitlements and understand how their benefits work.  I hope the Senate shuts this nonsense down if it gets to that point - but somehow I'm not convinced it will.

Having read a number of sites with information on this issue, I am struck by the facile tone, the lack of analytical rigour, the convenient overlooking of the fact that service pensions can be payable to someone from their late 30s onwards (though under the new terms, that will be early 40s - 25 years to qualify vice the previous 20).  Compound interest and NPV are concepts that are ignored.

The reduction has never been hidden.  The legislation and its related regulations are public documents. 


My view is simple: It's an attempt to provide a benefit to people who never paid for it, with no logic or reason behind it.  Naturally, it's endorsed by Jack Layton.

 

[j_r_42]

Oh, and is this standard for other pensions? My dad works for a transit system, and he told me that his pension won't go through any sort of clawback. How is that fair?

In my experience (as a former fincial advisor/banker), it's not that uncommon for pensions to have the amount reduced after CPP/OAS starts, however most pension plans call the extra money you get at the start a 'top-up'. It's sounds a lot nicer than clawback, but it's essentially the same thing. 

Otto -- I would recommend you seek guidance from a certified financial planner.  There are pros and cons to taking a commuted value for the pension, but you need to talk to somebody who can work this out with you.  Locked in retirement accounts have a lot more restricitions than a normal retirement account would.

 

[Quag]

I noticed Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew County (Petawawa) was a Nay.

This does not surprise me.  I never understood how such an incompetent person could ever be voted in office.

You would think that as a representative of Petawawa you would be in favour of the bill.  Is that not what our elected official do? Represent the opinions of the people of the riding?

Of course she will be getting a pretty pension for having served her time doing little but sit in an office looking pretty and cruising the Ottawa River in her ski boat. 

Disgusting really...

 

[aesop081]

I will not share my opinion on the pension issue here but i wish to adress this :

You would think that as a representative of Petawawa you would be in favour of the bill.  Is that not what our elected official do? Represent the opinions of the people of the riding?

Considering that she represents a riding full of military people and that many military members on this site have posted that they do not agree with the bill, how can you say that her 'nay" vote does not represent her constituants ?

 

[Quag]

I will not share my opinion on the pension issue here but i wish to adress this :

Considering that she represents a riding full of military people and that many military members on this site have posted that they do not agree with the bill, how can you say that her 'nay" vote does not represent her constituants ?

You think a handful of people on this thread represent the majority of the military community in Petawawa?

 

[aesop081]

You think a handful of people on this thread represent the majority of the military community in Petawawa?

No but it surely indicates that being a CF member does not imply support for this bill.

Unless you have hard numbers of CF members in the Petawawa area that support / does not support the bill, i feel you are premature in saying that the local MP does not represent her constituants.

 

[Strike]

It was also already stated that the members seemed to have been voting along party lines.  Gallant might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but she certainly didn't vote that way because of her constituents' views.

 

[Quag]

No but it surely indicates that being a CF member does not imply support for this bill.

Unless you have hard numbers of CF members in the Petawawa area that support / does not support the bill, i feel you are premature in saying that the local MP does not represent her constituants.

Obviously I don't have hard numbers and you are right in saying being a CF member does not necessarily imply support for this bill.

However, I don't feel I'm premature in saying that Gallant does not represent her constituents...look at her history...she rarely does...

(facts lifted from wikipedia)

In 2002, she was accused of making anti-gay remarks to then Minister of Foreign Affairs Bill Graham, when during a heated exchange, she kept interrupting "Ask your boyfriend" or "How's your boyfriend?". Graham is married and has two children with his wife Catherine Graham.

During the 2004 election, a controversy erupted when Gallant compared abortion to the beheading of Iraq war hostage Nick Berg.

Gallant resurfaced in the spotlight on March 17, 2005, when she suggested that Christians were being persecuted by the Liberal Party in a flyer she sent to her constituents. Tory leader Stephen Harper, confronted with the news, said "I'll let Cheryl Gallant explain those remarks herself; I haven't seen them."

Of around 60 major candidates in 15 Eastern Ontario and West Quebec ridings, Gallant was the only one who didn't attending a meeting with the Ottawa Citizen editorial board. "Ms. Gallant's decision to duck every difficult question from the media is nothing short of childish", commented Citizen columnist Kelly Egan.

I think Strike summed it up, not the sharpest tool in the shed...

 

[aesop081]

Obviously I don't have hard numbers and you are right in saying being a CF member does not necessarily imply support for this bill.

So therefore, all things being equal, she may have voted along the lines of her constituant's views. We just dont know because we do not have numbers for members who support /do not support this bill. We only know that some do and that some dont.

Of course, Strike is correct in saying that the vote was along party lines so things were not equal.

 

[Strike]

I think Strike summed it up, not the sharpest tool in the shed...

Whoa whoa whoa!  I also said she was towing the party line on this issue.  The other items you brought up have no bearing whatsoever on the topic at hand.

 

[Quag]

So therefore, all things being equal, she may have voted along the lines of her constituant's views. We just dont know because we do not have numbers for members who support /do not support this bill. We only know that some do and that some dont.

Of course, Strike is correct in saying that the vote was along party lines so things were not equal.

She MAY have voted along the lines of her constituents but IMO I highly doubt it...

Strike I wasn't bringing you in, just wanted to steal your line...

 

[dapaterson]

Sigh.  The majority of military personnel in Petawawa are not represented by Cheryl Gallant.  For those paying attention, Reg F members (and a limited number of reservists) vote in the riding where they enrolled, unless they submit formal paperwork to change their residence.  Hence the special voting arrangements made for members of the military.

(And re: Ms Gallant - from what I've seen, she may not be the sharpest tool, but she certainly is a tool...)

 

[Occam]

Sigh.  The majority of military personnel in Petawawa are not represented by Cheryl Gallant.  For those paying attention, Reg F members (and a limited number of reservists) vote in the riding where they enrolled, unless they submit formal paperwork to change their residence.  Hence the special voting arrangements made for members of the military.

That's not necessarily true either.  My federal electoral district remains that of my place of enrolment, but I haven't cast a vote that's been counted there for over 25 years.  I simply walk into the appropriate polling station, show my driver's licence to indicate place of residence, and they give me a ballot for the riding where I actually reside.  I suspect many others do it the same way, rather than changing their official federal electoral district every 3-4 years when posted.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quag,
I'm just curious, how do you feel that you have the authority to state that the 3,000+ members at CFB Petawawa wish to contribute three or four hundred dollars more per pay to their pension fund?

 

[dapaterson]

That's not necessarily true either.  My federal electoral district remains that of my place of enrolment, but I haven't cast a vote that's been counted there for over 25 years.  I simply walk into the appropriate polling station, show my driver's licence to indicate place of residence, and they give me a ballot for the riding where I actually reside.  I suspect many others do it the same way, rather than changing their official federal electoral district every 3-4 years when posted.

You do realize that you're breaking the law in doing so?  No polite weasel words around to dance around that fact.

But we're now well and truly off topic...