CARP’s proposal for an Universal Pension Plan

40 responses so far ↓

• 1 Michael James // May 4, 2009 at 11:23 pm

  The dramatic increase in taxes represents an unrealistic transfer of wealth from young to old. As our population ages, the tax rate will have to increase even further to maintain this 70% of pre-retirement income. There aren’t enough young people in Canada to shoulder such a huge financial burden.

• 2 mfd // May 5, 2009 at 12:02 am

  I hate this. I might as well quit my job, get a lower paying job with less responsibility and not save a dime. I’ll let someone else worry about providing me with financial security during retirement.

• 3 CanadianInvestor // May 5, 2009 at 1:55 am

  The problem with RRSPs seems to be that people don’t actually save/contribute and instead they spend their money on consumption today. The danger for those who do save, and the following younger generation, is that they will, through the government and taxes, be asked to support the under-savers. It’s the story of the three little pigs.

  I think 70% replacement target for a UPP is too high, maybe 50%(?) is adequate – something well above the poverty line at median earnings but not a lot of discretionary surplus.

  The other challenge with the RRSP approach is that most people don’t have the time, interest and knowledge to do a reasonable job investing and will end up with far less than they could/should. The financial advice industry in Canada is not set up to provide the neutral expert assistance to those people either.

• 4 Chris // May 5, 2009 at 2:13 am

  The problem is that right now, you might as well quit your job and go work for the federal government if the opportunity presents itself.

  I work in the semi-public sector. I have a defined benefit pension plan. But I look at people with skills and training similar to mine who work for the federal government, and their benefit package just doesn’t make any sense. Even though I love my job, if a gov’t job came my way I feel that I would be forced to take it.

  Right now federal employees (and to some extent provicial) are guaranteed a comfy retirement that seems unreachable to most Canadians. The worst part is, it is “most Canadians” that will be forced to bear the burden for this lucky few.

  I think that this lobby group is just trying to level the playing field. I don’t necessarily agree with their plan, but I think something needs to be done to ensure that a career in the private sector is at least as attractive as a career in the gov’t. (Otherwise the gov’t is just going to keep growing and growing and growing!)

• 5 Alexandra // May 5, 2009 at 4:21 am

  It would be interesting to see how the commenters (to Jon’s piece, for ex) skew by age – I suspect younger Canadians would be far less supportive of this idea than are CARP’s constituency.

  I can’t help but think that the solution to the problem of inadequate retirement savings is NOT a new forced contribution UPP but increased financial literacy.

  I also think the problem goes deeper than the financial advice industry. Yes, I wholeheartedly concur that industry is not set up to provide neutral advice to Canadians.

  But I also think that there isn’t sufficient call from Canadians to have it be another way. The reason that there is only a handful of fee-for-service financial planners in Canada is that it is extremely difficult to make that business model work. What are the sources of neutral financial advice in Canada? And how do you stimulate an interest on the part of Canadians to increase their financial literacy?

• 6 Bruce // May 5, 2009 at 8:00 am

  This plan is a bad idea. The talented will go south or other place.

• 7 Danny // May 5, 2009 at 8:27 am

  Super Awesome…

  I’m doing everything I can to make sure I put away 30% of my income (which boils down to saying ‘no’ to a lot stuff I’d like to have) – why shouldn’t I be punished for that?

• 8 Michael James // May 5, 2009 at 8:27 am

  CanadianInvestor: To use an analogy, suppose that a room has 20 people and plate with 20 cookies. CARP has done an analysis showing that everyone needs 4 cookies each. You are suggesting (with the 50% figure) that maybe 3 cookies each are adequate. I’m coming at it from the point of view that there can be only 1 cookie each, regardless of what our needs are. As lifetimes have been getting longer and birth rates dropping, maintaining a retirement age in the 60-65 range is unsustainable even at the current pension levels for retirees. To increase payments further is just impossible; something has to break. The most sensible thing to do is to gradually increase the retirement age to about 75, but this would be so unpopular among older people (who are making up a larger and larger fraction of voters) that I don’t see how to get it done. As tax rates on young people go to 50%, 60%, 70%, they will either stop working or leave the country.

• 9 Phil S // May 5, 2009 at 9:14 am

  I have friends in the public service who are devout socialists & marxists who would very much applaud the concept. I’ve always worked in the private sector and am a devout capitalist and I very much dislike this idea. I think that is where the opinion split occurs – it depends upon whether you are a socialist / marxist or capitalist and no amount of argument will change either side’s mind.

  I agree with the other posters, it will completely kill the private sector economy in Canada. But my friends in the civil service would say “who cares”? We can nationalize all of our industry and model ourselves after countries like Cuba, where doctors and lawyers make around the same amount of money as farmers and janitors. In the marxist society, people are only driven to go into whatever field of endeavour that they want where money literally is NOT a factor. In fact, if you’re a fan of Star Trek and you pay attention to those details, the society of Star Trek’s science fiction model is the ideal Marxist fantasy.

  I will have to admit, though, that I was recently given my walking papers from work. And despite being a devout capitalist, I too would jump at the chance to enter the civil service if provided with that opportunity. Who would turn down a job at the most secure employer in the country and get a highly paid job for life? It’s like winning the lottery.

• 10 Beth // May 5, 2009 at 9:23 am

  If you increased the retirement age to 75, then won’t our disability payouts increase as a result? There’s a significant part of the 65-75 population who are physically unable to work due to chronic diseases.

  As for not wanting to pay for other people’s ways, I think that ship has sailed with all the bailouts. It annoys me (as a younger commenter here) that the government will bail out/guarantee pension plans. So my tax dollars are going to bail out other people’s pension plans while I’m not lucky enough to have one at all?

  I don’t understand how CARP expects their vision to be financially possible, but why shouldn’t I have access to a pension plan? As a woman, I’m already screwed because I earn less, I’ll be taking a year or two off to have kids, and I’m far more likely to suffer from a chronic illness than a man.

  I’m a generation and a half behind the boomers, so I worry they’ll be nothing left of CPP by the time I get there. I wish someone was advocating for my interests!

• 11 Phil S // May 5, 2009 at 9:44 am

  @Beth. I hear you, but you have to realize that ever since the government started issuing bonds, they’ve become addicted to debt. Most politicians are in their 50’s and are only looking out for their own best interest. Government bonds are just a way of saying “let our kids and grand-kids find a way of paying for all of this stuff”. Most people today just figure the government can continue to print money and issue debt to make up for whatever shortfalls are in the budget. But as you pointed out, eventually you’re going to have to pay the piper. Maybe your generation, maybe the next one, but eventually Canada will become a failed state due to debt (that consumer credit council ad comes to mind – “I want two scoops, not just one”).
  On the good side, I think the USA will get there much sooner and at we can point and say “at least we didn’t do THAT” for a few years after the USA collapses and before our turn arrives. And the USA right now has been able to point to Iceland and say at least we didn’t to THAT.

  Iceland is turning into an interesting case study for an economic collapse, much more interesting than Brazil and Argentina because it is considered an advanced industrialized western society. We can learn a lot about how Iceland will un-bury itself from its mountain of debt. Almost everybody’s personal savings have been completely wiped out – and their Government is bankrupt. Personal suffering aside, it will be interesting to see what they do next. How do they pull out of despair? Stay tuned and watch the next episode of Iceland’s misery.

• 12 Canadian Capitalist // May 5, 2009 at 10:02 am

  Chris: My spouse works for the public sector and I’ve never worked for one, so I’m well aware of both sides of the picture. I do agree with the viewpoint that public sector employees are relatively lucky, especially in economically tough times. They have rather secure jobs, gold-plated pensions, generous vacation and sick leave etc.

  However, I don’t think it is such a no-brainer as it is usually made out to be. Salaries seem to be a one or two rungs below an equivalent position in the private sector. Public sector employees don’t get a free pension: they have to make pension contributions. They also have the additional expense of union dues. When times are good, their salaries might not keep pace with increases in the private sector. In the high-tech boom, a number of public sector employees quit and went to the private sector because salaries were so much higher.

  To give you an idea, many unions are still negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, which expired in Dec. 2007 (and we are almost half-way into 2009).

• 13 Canadian Capitalist // May 5, 2009 at 10:20 am

  CanadianInvestor: It is true that many do not contribute either enough or not at all to RRSPs. It is also true that not everyone flosses daily or exercises enough. I don’t think that increasing taxes on savers will be the only alternative — there just isn’t enough of savers to fund the spenders. The other alternative, as Michael points out, is raising the age at which retirees qualify for a pension. There have already been rumblings that the CPP age should be increased to 67. I think it is inevitable.

• 14 Basil2 // May 5, 2009 at 10:54 am

  CP, I posted my comment on UPP in your another post but I’ll repeat it here, it seems nobody noticed it.

  RRSP is nice vehicle to postpone taxes but it’s only a vehicle. To get somethingout of the vehicle you need to know how to drive it. People (in most cases, unless you are a thoroughly trained in finances and math) don’t know how to make sure they will have a stream of income when they reach their retirement. This is not just a matter of putting enough aside. There are many variables and parameters out of control of an individual, like inflation rate, interest rates, risks inherent in investing, how long will one live etc. etc. It’s easy to say “hey, it’s your responsability to save for retirement”. The truth is who knows how to do it? Yes, there are investment books out there but most people don’t have time to study obscure topic of investing, not to mention that most of these books are junk that provide false information, unfjustified claims etc. I view UPP something like universal health care where goverment need to get involved and spread risk of possible pension deficit among whole population. Only givernment has enough muscle (by taxing, printing money etc) to make sure that deficit is taken care of and nobody in this country has to beg in the street when reach old age. We need to take care of old people in our society not just think about minimizing taxes.

• 15 $ // May 5, 2009 at 11:14 am

  Government should just take 100% of your money and decide what to do with it for you. Government will always take care of you. They are above “human” after all, magical beings who know what is best for you. How dare any of you think you deserve what you earn, or even think you know what is best for you. Bow down and accept government, they will do everything, you need only be productive and feel guilty about it. Shut up and obey and all will be fine.

• 16 $ // May 5, 2009 at 11:29 am

  “We need to take care of old people in our society not just think about minimizing taxes.”

  Really? How productive are “old” people to society?

  “People… don’t know how to make sure they will have a stream of income when they reach their retirement.”

  Yes, luckily government and everyone else (the non-people) know exactly what to do with your money, as has been proven time and time again. You can see how the Fed and the governments knew there would be a credit crisis. They are experts, please take my money i trust them so much.

  “nobody in this country has to beg in the street when reach old age”
  Oh blah blah. How many old people beg in the street? Even if it was 1% of the population it doesn’t justify forcing everyone to pay for them. You want to pay for them you are quite capable of doing it without taking my money. There are more than enough people like you to take care of the begging millions on our streets.

• 17 Canadian Capitalist // May 5, 2009 at 11:39 am

  Basil2: We already take care of old people through income-tested benefits such as OAS and GIS. Let’s say a senior couple have $9,000 in income through CPP and no other pensions or income. Combined OAS+GIS is roughly $1,500 per month for a total annual income of $27K. I don’t support senior citizens begging in the streets either but what the CARP is proposing here is a gold-plated pension plan that can only be supported by very high contribution rates.

  The CPP contribution rate is 9% for providing a 25% pension in retirement. Apply the same formula and you’ll get a 26% combined UPP contribution rate for providing a 70% pension. Are working Canadians willing to take a 25% pay cut to be part of a mandatory contribution plans?

• 18 Jon D. // May 5, 2009 at 1:30 pm

  There are 2 overwhelming themes here:

  1.) Social support vs. individual Responsibility. Everyone’s personal philosophy enters the discussion. Fear that Canada would become an greater Socialist State. You want to see a socialism in action for seniors? Look south. Social Security and Medicare Plan D (viagra is covered if you’re 65). Votes from seniors were bought. Obviously U.S. isn’t a model.

  2.) Validity of CPP. Article quotes “modeled on CPP”. If it’s modeled on CPP, why not simply adjust CPP? Many DB plans are already in the 8-10% contribution range, (teachers nearing 13%) add in the 4.95% of CPP and you’re only a few points from 20% of gross income. There has to be a more efficient model and integration.

• 19 chum // May 5, 2009 at 3:05 pm

  Atlas Shrugged should be mandatory reading for everyone. If things like this ever pass, or NDP gets elected to government, I am quitting my job and going on welfare. If you can’t beat em (the mooches) you are going to have to join them or they will ride you into the ground.

• 20 Al R // May 5, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  I realize it’s tempting to bash civil servants, but comparing it to winning the lottery (or that such people are “lucky”) is insulting. Full disclosure – I work in the public sector.

  I acquired multiple university degrees, finished at the top of my class (twice), and beat out literally hundreds of other applicants for my job. Luck had nothing to do with my hiring. They didn’t draw a number out of a hat.

  As CC notes, during boom times, our salaries are not equivalent to those in the private sector. Our pensions are great, but we pay (ever increasing percentages of our salaries) into them. Bottom line is that job security and pension are part of our compensation package.

  If a job in the public service is so desirable, by all means, come on in. Don’t be alarmed – from my own observations, I’d say no more than 40% of my colleagues are dues paying members of the communist party.

  p.s. The CPP is actuarially sound for at least the next several decades. Most of us will be long dead by the time anyone has to worry about its solvency.

• 21 Phil S // May 5, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  @Al R. I’m not sure what part of the civil service you’re in, but my friends at Ontario Hydro and AECL made about 50% MORE than I made in the private sector at the time when we all graduated together. That gap has closed somewhat after almost 20 yrs in the workforce, but at the present time, I’m on EI and they’re still working and they have no concerns about ever getting laid off, so that’s obviously worth more than my equivalent private sector position which was downsized. And do you think I haven’t applied to try to get into Ontario Hydro? Boy have I ever tried! And I’m still trying!

• 22 Mike H. // May 5, 2009 at 4:10 pm

  Thanks for the quote!

• 23 Michael James // May 5, 2009 at 4:23 pm

  I agree with Al R that CPP is solvent for the foreseeable future. However, that won’t be true if we quadruple the benefits.

• 24 $ // May 5, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  The public sector are one of my clients, in a particular social branch. I see what goes on. There are some good people, but really, it’s lazy inefficient and way over paid. Bad people get in the way of anything ever getting done, the good people give up. No one gets laid off or reprimanded. It’s a joke. The one’s with university degrees are the ones who like to work the least, why should they, work is for those dumb collage grunts.
  Tax payers, I mean, government, are my best client. Thank you all for opening your wallets, please keep voting for more ways to vacuum your guilt away to help the needy and poor.

• 25 Aleks // May 5, 2009 at 6:11 pm

  I think a more apt fable than the three pigs is the one about the ant and the grasshopper. The grasshopper spends the whole summer playing and making fun of the ant for wasting all his time storing food. When winter comes, the grasshopper comes to the ant’s house and begs.

  This is exactly what CARP is doing. People over 50 have mostly been in the workforce for 30 years or more, with 15 or less left to go. So for 2/3 of their working lives, they were gallovanting around spending everything they earned with no thought to what they’d do when they retire. Some of them have so much debt that their net worth is actually negative. And now they’re lobbying to have the retirement they couldn’t be bothered to save for paid by other people.

  The time to implement a pension plan like this was 30 years ago, when they were entering the workforce. And in fact, if such a plan were implemented for people under 40 I’d be behind it. But of course the whole thing is just another money-grab by the most self-centered generation ever to gaze into a mirror, the Baby Boomers. Never mind that it’s their own children and grandchildren they’re screwing, never mind that it will bankrupt the country, they’re entitled because they’re the Boomers and they’re the most important generation ever.

• 26 Al R // May 5, 2009 at 7:50 pm

  I’m not sure about the specifics of CARP’s proposal, but if it’s like the CPP, one would actually have to pay into it to see benefits, no?

  All hyperbole aside, I don’t think anyone is proposing to suddenly give people who have not contributed to a UPP maximum benefits immediately. This would be a savings vehicle for people who do not have access to an employer sponsored plan.

  The C.D. Howe Institute has backed this idea, and they can hardly be called left-wing. Their commentary seemed pretty reasonable to me:

  http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/Commentary_275.pdf

• 27 Michael James // May 5, 2009 at 8:08 pm

  Al R: After a quick skim of the CD Howe Institute document, I don’t think their proposal look much like CARP’s.

• 28 DAvid // May 5, 2009 at 9:25 pm

  I think everyone here would be very satisfied if they could tap into the money management successes of any of the big pension managers, be it any of the provincial pension plans, CPP, Ontario Teachers Plan, etc. I understand the UPP to be an idea that makes use of this skill to ensure a pension for contributors. I know for certain, that were I not in a forced pension contribution situation, I would have begun contributions much later, to my eventual dismay! I believe CARP believes their members’ experience of not having a pension because there never seemed the money, might be alleviated by using the idea of required contributions ensuring a pension at retirement.

  MANY small businesses have no form of contributory pension plan, and most of their employees make no contributions, simply because the money runs out before the month does. If you enroll in a plan, the money is gone before you realize, and you manage your budget.

  Why not try to find some positives in the proposal, rather than creating negatives that do not exist in it: CARP has not suggested taxing the general population to pay for this program, they have just indicated that, in their opinion, contributions should be universal, and you receive a benefit based on your contributions up to a maximum.

  DAvid

• 29 DAvid // May 5, 2009 at 9:43 pm

  Phil S,
  As usual, your expressed experience is very narrowly focused, but you apply it widely. In this instance, the Public Service is far broader than Ontario Hydro, or AECL, and as stated by others, most professionals in the Public Service are paid considerably less than they might receive in the private sector. In addition, some of the so called ‘gold plated’ benefits have been negotiated over the years in lieu of direct wages, and are not ‘free’. Some, such as retirement income, will also end up taxed at a fairly high rate, and benefit others.

  In addition, in most provinces, there has been a Robin Hood effect, where many professional groups accepted lower wage packages over the years in order to raise the wages of some of the lower paid staff, thus the government engineer makes less than his / her private sector counterpart, but the admin clerks sees a higher wage & benefit package.

  You should travel a bit more — you might learn there is a whole world of difference beyond what you can see.

  DAvid

• 30 Phil S // May 5, 2009 at 11:42 pm

  @DAvid. Well, I know people in the City’s Municipal Planning department and their salaries are comparable with the private sector but with more benefits. My father is a retired professor and I have no idea who you would compare his salary against in the private sector, but if you compare it against private universities, then he was making more which is the reason why I grew up in Canada instead of the USA (he left a job at a private university to go work at a Canadian institution). I know a couple of postal workers and I’m sure if you compare their salaries against UPS employees, I think you’d find that they make about the same, but with more benefits… I don’t think I need to go on.

  I “get out” plenty, thank you very much for your assumption. OK. I don’t know any clerks or other bureaucrats and I certainly don’t know how much they make. Is that to whom you are referring?

  But back to the original point being UPP… As one of the other posters commented, why didn’t they just propose expanding the CPP? As a proposal, wouldn’t that make more sense than throwing on a totally new plan?

• 31 Michael James // May 5, 2009 at 11:45 pm

  DAvid: I read the CARP descriptions of the UPP differently than you did. They say the UPP would eventually replace CPP and would guarantee all retirees 70% of their pre-retirement income up to a maximum income of $116,667. As I understand it, the benefit would not be based on your contributions, but would be based on your pre-retirement income. So, it would be taxing the general population to pay for the program. The level of taxation CARP proposes is simply not enough to fund the program unless the taxes are collected from all workers to pay today’s retirees. And the tax levels will have to rise dramatically as the proportion of our population over 65 continues to rise.

• 32 Michael James // May 6, 2009 at 12:03 am

  It seems clear that many of us have different ideas of what CARP’s UPP is. My comments are based on this page:

  http://www.carp.ca/advocacy/adv-article-display.cfm?documentID=3749

  It describes UPP as an extended CPP that would provide expanded benefits to all retirees immediately and would eventually replace all other private and public pension plans over a 47-year period. Presumably, during the 47 years those who have other sources of retirement income would have some or all of their UPP taxed back. So, all workers would be taxed more to pay for current retiree benefits. And as the percentage of the population that is retired increases, all workers would have to be taxed more.

• 33 GSS-Fresh Start // May 6, 2009 at 12:40 am

  Reading about the UPP plan brings to mind a lot of different thoughts. Maybe I’ll write my own post on my own blog about this later. For now, I’m tired so I’ll just leave two thoughts and some absurdity.
  1) Don’t we have a large federal debt right now? If people want something safe and guaranteed that they can count on, why don’t we just simply market government bonds to them?
  2) I’m sceptical that this will improve anything but I feel fairly certain that it’ll decrease personal savings and increase financial ignorance. After all, if someone else is making me let them take care of things why do anything? Isn’t a head in the sand attitude what drove us here in the first place? Why don’t we fix that instead?

  Finally, this is on the far side of extremely silly here, but I figured I’d share it since I got a good laugh when it came to mind. Before that the primary means of sustaining old age was to have kids and get them to take care of you. If you were on the tailing edge of that and faced with the prospect of all your kids leaving home for factory jobs, would it make sense to enact laws forcing one of them to stay behind? Would it make sense to expect the government to assign a younger person to an older couple without kids?

• 34 Canadian Capitalist // May 6, 2009 at 7:09 am

  Some have made the comment on why not simply expand the CPP. My understanding is any change in the CPP mandate would need approval of a majority of the provinces as well. Good luck with achieving that. I think that may be why CARP is proposing yet another national pension plan, but that’s just a guess.

  Michael: Thanks for the link. I’ve been under the impression that the CARP is calling for a true pension plan with the UPP, in the sense that benefits would depend on the size and length of contributions into the plan. That is how the CPP works for current contributors. But the wording in that link seems to suggests that retirees would be able to immediately get benefits from the UPP.

• 35 Beth // May 6, 2009 at 8:19 am

  Curiouser and curiouser. I’m learning a lot from this comments.

  Here’s what worries me: If my taxes increased to pay for a new pension plan, then I wouldn’t be able to afford much to put into my own retirement savings. I’m wary about so much of my money being diverted to a program that probably won’t exist in thirty years when I actually get to retire. (If I can ever afford to retire…)

• 36 John // May 7, 2009 at 10:37 pm

  Phil S.

  If you would like a government job you can apply:

  http://jobs-emplois.gc.ca/

  I took a government job after being laid off and took a 33% pay cut. After 8 years in government I am making 14% more than when I was when I was laid off.

  I’m not saying a government job isn’t a sweat deal but the jobs are there for everyone to apply for.

  Unfortunately not everyone can have a government job as we would all starve to death in short order.

• 37 A Lap Of The Blogs : WhereDoesAllMyMoneyGo.com // May 7, 2009 at 11:12 pm

  [...] Canadian Capitalist looks at CARP’s call for a Universal Pension Plan. [...]

• 38 Weekend Reading - Personal Finance Books, Stocks and CPP | Million Dollar Journey // May 8, 2009 at 6:30 am

  [...] Canadian Capitalist talks about CARP’s proposal for a Universal Pension Plan. [...]

• 39 Rocky // May 9, 2009 at 1:23 am

  I saw the comments about the ant and grasshopper and it reminded me of this little story that I saw a while back.

  CLASSIC VERSION:

  The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

  THE END

  THE CANADIAN VERSION:

  The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. So far, so good, eh?

  The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like him, are cold and starving.

  The CBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper, with cuts to a video of the ant in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food.

  Canadians are stunned that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty. The NDP, the CAW and the Coalition Against Poverty demonstrate in front of the ant’s house. The CBC, interrupting an Inuit cultural festival special from Nunavut with breaking news, broadcasts them singing ‘We Shall Overcome.’

  Jack Layton rants in an interview with Mike Duffy that the ant has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his ‘fair share’.

  In response to polls, the Conservative Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

  The ant’s taxes are reassessed, and he is also fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as helpers.

  Without enough money to pay both the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

  The ant moves to the US, and starts a successful agribiz company.

  The CBC later shows the now fat grasshopper finishing up the last of the ant’s food, though spring is still months away, while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he hasn’t bothered to maintain it.

  Inadequate government funding is blamed, Bob Rae is appointed to head a commission of enquiry that will cost $10,000,000.

  The grasshopper is soon dead of a drug overdose, the Toronto Star blames it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity.

  The abandoned house is taken over by a gang of immigrant spiders, praised by the government for enriching Canada’s multicultural diversity, who promptly set up a marijuana grow op and terrorize the community.

  THE END

  Source: http://bob-sakamano.blogspot.com/2008/03/ant-and-grasshopper.html

• 40 A Week in Review: Edition #10 | My Findependence Day // May 10, 2009 at 9:43 am

  [...] – Canadian Capitalist decides to harp on Carp’s UPP plan.   I hate the whole concept and I hope young workers [...]

Leave a Comment