Comments on: Major Changes Coming to the Canada Pension Plan http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/major-changes-coming-to-the-canada-pension-plan/ Helping you invest and prosper Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:54:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: malcolm mac donald http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/major-changes-coming-to-the-canada-pension-plan/#comment-1448070 malcolm mac donald Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:55:03 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=2444#comment-1448070 wonderful change. everyone will go along with it if MP pensions are cut to. wonderful change. everyone will go along with it if MP pensions are cut to.

]]> By: G. Prokovich http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/major-changes-coming-to-the-canada-pension-plan/#comment-1208175 G. Prokovich Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:01:22 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=2444#comment-1208175 Who do these cl;owns think they are? Do they think we are stupid while their legally stealing our money and giving nus so much crap they beleive it themselves. There should be a general strike for a month and see how much taxes they collect to fill their f|n pockets.It,s like the casino|s ripping you off. Did they ever here of prohibition? Legal way for them to feed us crap. The politicians should be loxcked up for the BS theyn feed us. If we did what they did we would be in jail and throw away the key. THEY MAKE ME SICK. Nobody has the balls to stop working for a week or 2. Instead of helping low income people on CPP or other low wages while the politicians dictate to us. WE the people are tyhe government but nobody remembers that. Soon we will all live under the bridges & on the streets. The increase in the cost of living & everyyhing else we need necessities car insurance ETC. is so out of line we should park our cars in the sreets and stay home wecannot afford high car premiums when the cost is way more than the value of the vehicle.Anyway i could go on forever but everybody will take it and say tax m,e more until you lose everything and dignity. Who do these cl;owns think they are? Do they think we are stupid while their legally stealing our money and giving nus so much crap they beleive it themselves. There should be a general strike for a month and see how much taxes they collect to fill their f|n pockets.It,s like the casino|s ripping you off. Did they ever here of prohibition? Legal way for them to feed us crap. The politicians should be loxcked up for the BS theyn feed us. If we did what they did we would be in jail and throw away the key. THEY MAKE ME SICK. Nobody has the balls to stop working for a week or 2. Instead of helping low income people on CPP or other low wages while the politicians dictate to us. WE the people are tyhe government but nobody remembers that. Soon we will all live under the bridges & on the streets. The increase in the cost of living & everyyhing else we need necessities car insurance ETC. is so out of line we should park our cars in the sreets and stay home wecannot afford high car premiums when the cost is way more than the value of the vehicle.Anyway i could go on forever but everybody will take it and say tax m,e more until you lose everything and dignity.

]]> By: lorraine http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/major-changes-coming-to-the-canada-pension-plan/#comment-464439 lorraine Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:18:00 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=2444#comment-464439 Here"s an interesting one ,i was 30 yrs. old when my husband passed away he was 37 & he worked & payed into ccp but i was not able to cllect it after he died because i was not old enough & we had no kids ,they said when i turns 65 i can apply for his ccp,now isn"t that nice of the gov. Here”s an interesting one ,i was 30 yrs. old when my husband passed away he was 37 & he worked & payed into ccp but i was not able to cllect it after he died because i was not old enough & we had no kids ,they said when i turns 65 i can apply for his ccp,now isn”t that nice of the gov.

]]> By: J Labecque http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/major-changes-coming-to-the-canada-pension-plan/#comment-444876 J Labecque Sat, 12 Mar 2011 16:46:14 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=2444#comment-444876 I am self employed and applied for CPP when I was 60. I will be 65 in October 2012. Question - do I have to pay premiums for 9 months or am I OK because I turn 65 in 2012. As a self employed person I would have double premiums - my contribution as well as the employers contribution....would not be happy about this. Look forward to your response. Jean I am self employed and applied for CPP when I was 60. I will be 65 in October 2012. Question – do I have to pay premiums for 9 months or am I OK because I turn 65 in 2012.

As a self employed person I would have double premiums – my contribution as well as the employers contribution….would not be happy about this.

Look forward to your response.

Jean

]]> By: E MacMillan http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/major-changes-coming-to-the-canada-pension-plan/#comment-415238 E MacMillan Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:11:32 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=2444#comment-415238 Am I the only one who thinks it's wrong to receive CPP and have to pay in at the same time...what kind of nightmare will this spawm? Will the 3 years I've worked and received CPP count in the 17%, is this even relavent now..if they count years, will I get screwed because I will probably pay less than 50% of the CPP I used to pay? Hey, people who start working again, probably haven't enough money to live on due to the recession..duh! Just what I need another deduction, and for what, an extra $1.00 a month? How long will I have to live to recoup my loss? I only planned to work 9 more months from Jan 2012. The CPP deducted would be about $450.00. Hey, we all could look at a calendar and know when the Baby Boomer would turn 65 and the rest of us agreed to the reduced CPP so why is the Government so surprised that they are in trouble. Am I the only one who thinks it’s wrong to receive CPP and have to pay in at the same time…what kind of nightmare will this spawm? Will the 3 years I’ve worked and received CPP count in the 17%,
is this even relavent now..if they count years, will I get screwed because I will probably pay less than 50% of the CPP I used to pay? Hey, people who start working again, probably haven’t enough
money to live on due to the recession..duh! Just what I need another deduction, and for what, an extra
$1.00 a month? How long will I have to live to recoup my loss? I only planned to work 9 more months from Jan 2012. The CPP deducted would be about $450.00.
Hey, we all could look at a calendar and know when the Baby Boomer would turn 65 and the rest of us agreed to the reduced CPP so why is the Government so surprised that they are in trouble.

]]> By: E Apimom http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/major-changes-coming-to-the-canada-pension-plan/#comment-297861 E Apimom Thu, 04 Nov 2010 00:16:43 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=2444#comment-297861 Excellent article. Enjoyed reading it. Will use as much as I can out of it. I do have a question: can you please explain your statement: If they chose to invest that amount in current venues available through the Government of Canada that guaranteed them a 40% return on those investments without any risk what-so-ever. What current venues provide a 40% return (over what time)? Appreciate a feedback on this. E Apimom Excellent article. Enjoyed reading it. Will use as much as I can out of it.

I do have a question: can you please explain your statement:
If they chose to invest that amount in current venues available through the Government of Canada that guaranteed them a 40% return on those investments without any risk what-so-ever.

What current venues provide a 40% return (over what time)?

Appreciate a feedback on this.

E Apimom

]]> By: CPP SME http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/major-changes-coming-to-the-canada-pension-plan/#comment-297125 CPP SME Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:49:14 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=2444#comment-297125 Section 114(4) of the Canada Pension Plan Act requires that 2/3rds of the Provinces (excluding Quebec) with an aggregate population of 2/3rds their population are required to affect changes to the CPP Act. Since an executive order in council by the Lieutenant Governors of these Provinces can not be relied upon to represent an implied consent of 2/3rds of the population of these Provinces, given that there has not been a number that equates to 2/3rds of the population represented by the electorate in any Provincial election since the inception of the Canada Pension Plan act, my question would be, How did these two bills come into force? Would the distinction in CPP benefit eligibility between those retirees entering retirement before January 1, 2012, and those retiring after that date, not pose a Charter or Constitutional infraction that limits those retiring after January 1st 2012 to a lesser amount being available to them due to the mandatory requirement to pay into CPP in order to qualify for equal funding. I raise that question as a former CPP subject matter expert representing the Minister in any Court, Tribunal, or Public office in Canada. For example, under current legislation, a Canadian eligible for a maximum benefit who wishes to take their benefit at age 60 and continue to work through to age 65, would by virtue of doing that, have available to themselves a benefit of $834.17 (based on today’s current max) per month to spend or invest as they deem fit over the next 60 months. If they chose to invest that amount in current venues available through the Government of Canada that guaranteed them a 40% return on those investments without any risk what-so-ever, they would be able to amass approximately $70,071.12 of wealth during that period of time without pulling another red cent out of their pockets. This would afford them an opportunity to reduce mortgage debt or supplement income as they enter retirement in a manner that does not affect future generations of contributors. How does the equalizing funding formula attributed to the changes imposed by these two bills Bill C-51 & Bill C-36 work to counter that? With a reduction in benefit amount at age 60 (based on today’s current max) a CPP contributor would receive considerably less at age 60 estimated at 64% of the current benefit of 934.17, or $597.87 per month, and ironically, would be mandatorily required to pay CPP contributions in the amount of 180.26 or more per month henceforth to age 65, in order to gain .6% advantage per month as they move forward. I find this absurd and extortive to say the least when making comparisons to those that are eligible for CPP prior to January 1 2012. Please consider the following example: • By continuing to pay in, at the end of their first year, they will have gained (.6% x 12) 7.2% on the $597.87 or have reached a point whereby they would be earning $640.92 per month. Compared to the income received by previous retirees, they would be facing a net loss of ( 834.17- 640.92 = 193.25) $193.25 per month. This does not count in the extra (180.26 X 12 = 2,163.12) $2,163.12 contributions paid. When those contributions are included in the calculation, the $43.05 in monthly benefit amount gained through the first year’s additional contributions reflects a net loss of ([193.25 x 12] = 2319.00 + 2163.12 – 43.05 =4439.07) $4,439.07 • By continuing to pay in, at the end of their second year, they will have gained 7.2% on the $640.92 or have reached a point whereby they would be earning $687.07 per month. Compared to the income received by previous retirees, they would be facing a net loss of -$147.10 (834.17- 687.06 = 147.10) per month. This does not count in the extra (180.26 X 12 = 2,163.12) $2,163.12 contributions being paid in this year. When those contributions are included in the calculation, the $46.15 in benefit amount gained through the second year’s additional contributions reflects a net loss of ([147.10 x 12] = 1765.20 + 2163.12 - 46.15 =3882.17) $3,882.17 the cumulative loss would be (3882.17+ 4439.07) = $8,321.24 • By continuing to pay in, at the end of their third year, they will have gained 7.2% on the $687.07 or have reached a point whereby they would be earning $736.54 per month. Compared to the income received by previous retirees, they would be facing a net loss of (834.17- 736.54) = $97.64 per month. This does not count in the extra (180.26 X 12 = 2,163.12) $2,163.12 contributions being paid in this year. When those contributions are included in the calculation, the $49.47 in benefit amount gained through the third year’s additional contributions reflects a net loss of ([97.64 x 12] = 1171.68 + 2163.12 - 49.47 =3285.33) $3,285.33 the cumulative loss would be (3285.33+ 8321.24) = $11,606.57 • By continuing to pay in, at the end of their fourth year, they will have gained 7.2% on the $736.54 or have reached a point whereby they would be earning $789.57 per month. Compared to the income received by previous retirees, they would be facing a net loss of (834.17- 789.57) = $44.60 per month. This does not count in the extra (180.26 X 12 = 2,163.12) $2,163.12 contributions being paid in this year. When those contributions are included in the calculation, the $53.03 in benefit amount gained through the fourth year’s additional contributions reflects a net loss of (44.60 x 12 = 535.20 + 2163.12 – 53.03 = 2645.29) $2,645.29 the cumulative loss would be (2645.29 + 11606.57) = $14,251.86 • By continuing to pay in, at the end of their fifth year, they will have gained 7.2% on the $789.57 or have reached a point whereby they would be earning $846.42 per month. Compared to the income received by previous retirees, they would be facing for the first time, at age 65 a net gain (846.42 – 846.42) = 12.25 per month over former retirees benefits received at age 60. This however, still does not count in the extra (180.26 X 12 = 2,163.12) $2,163.12 contributions being paid in this year. When those contributions are included in the calculation, the $56.85 in benefit amount gained through the fifth year’s additional contributions reflects a net loss of ( 12.25x 12 = 147.00 + 56.85 - 2163.12 =1957.27) $1925.27 the cumulative loss would be (1925.27 + 14,251.86) = $16,177.13 My firm’s would argue that post January 1, 2012 retirees would not only face an inequity with respects to not being able to use current measures to earn in excess of $70, 071.12 in the 5 years between 60 and 65, but quite too the contrary, would be facing a loss of $16,177.13 when compared to retirees that turned 60 prior to January 1st 2012. I will seek every opportunity to bring this matter up in a court challenge that would see these changes represent an elective choice on the part of the contributor as opposed to an imposition by Dilberts in Governance. I look forward to your reply. JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THAT IS A DIFFERENCE OF $86,248.25 which post 2012 Canadian retirees will face, and few families facing unprecedented economic challenges can afford to give up. Former policty analyst for Minister of Social Development Canada Section 114(4) of the Canada Pension Plan Act requires that 2/3rds of the Provinces (excluding Quebec) with an aggregate population of 2/3rds their population are required to affect changes to the CPP Act. Since an executive order in council by the Lieutenant Governors of these Provinces can not be relied upon to represent an implied consent of 2/3rds of the population of these Provinces, given that there has not been a number that equates to 2/3rds of the population represented by the electorate in any Provincial election since the inception of the Canada Pension Plan act, my question would be, How did these two bills come into force?

Would the distinction in CPP benefit eligibility between those retirees entering retirement before January 1, 2012, and those retiring after that date, not pose a Charter or Constitutional infraction that limits those retiring after January 1st 2012 to a lesser amount being available to them due to the mandatory requirement to pay into CPP in order to qualify for equal funding. I raise that question as a former CPP subject matter expert representing the Minister in any Court, Tribunal, or Public office in Canada.

For example, under current legislation, a Canadian eligible for a maximum benefit who wishes to take their benefit at age 60 and continue to work through to age 65, would by virtue of doing that, have available to themselves a benefit of $834.17 (based on today’s current max) per month to spend or invest as they deem fit over the next 60 months. If they chose to invest that amount in current venues available through the Government of Canada that guaranteed them a 40% return on those investments without any risk what-so-ever, they would be able to amass approximately $70,071.12 of wealth during that period of time without pulling another red cent out of their pockets. This would afford them an opportunity to reduce mortgage debt or supplement income as they enter retirement in a manner that does not affect future generations of contributors.

How does the equalizing funding formula attributed to the changes imposed by these two bills Bill C-51 & Bill C-36 work to counter that? With a reduction in benefit amount at age 60 (based on today’s current max) a CPP contributor would receive considerably less at age 60 estimated at 64% of the current benefit of 934.17, or $597.87 per month, and ironically, would be mandatorily required to pay CPP contributions in the amount of 180.26 or more per month henceforth to age 65, in order to gain .6% advantage per month as they move forward. I find this absurd and extortive to say the least when making comparisons to those that are eligible for CPP prior to January 1 2012. Please consider the following example:

• By continuing to pay in, at the end of their first year, they will have gained (.6% x 12) 7.2% on the $597.87 or have reached a point whereby they would be earning $640.92 per month. Compared to the income received by previous retirees, they would be facing a net loss of ( 834.17- 640.92 = 193.25) $193.25 per month. This does not count in the extra (180.26 X 12 = 2,163.12) $2,163.12 contributions paid. When those contributions are included in the calculation, the $43.05 in monthly benefit amount gained through the first year’s additional contributions reflects a net loss of ([193.25 x 12] = 2319.00 + 2163.12 – 43.05 =4439.07) $4,439.07

• By continuing to pay in, at the end of their second year, they will have gained 7.2% on the $640.92 or have reached a point whereby they would be earning $687.07 per month. Compared to the income received by previous retirees, they would be facing a net loss of -$147.10 (834.17- 687.06 = 147.10) per month. This does not count in the extra (180.26 X 12 = 2,163.12) $2,163.12 contributions being paid in this year. When those contributions are included in the calculation, the $46.15 in benefit amount gained through the second year’s additional contributions reflects a net loss of ([147.10 x 12] = 1765.20 + 2163.12 – 46.15 =3882.17) $3,882.17 the cumulative loss would be (3882.17+ 4439.07) = $8,321.24

• By continuing to pay in, at the end of their third year, they will have gained 7.2% on the $687.07 or have reached a point whereby they would be earning $736.54 per month. Compared to the income received by previous retirees, they would be facing a net loss of (834.17- 736.54) = $97.64 per month. This does not count in the extra (180.26 X 12 = 2,163.12) $2,163.12 contributions being paid in this year. When those contributions are included in the calculation, the $49.47 in benefit amount gained through the third year’s additional contributions reflects a net loss of ([97.64 x 12] = 1171.68 + 2163.12 – 49.47 =3285.33) $3,285.33 the cumulative loss would be (3285.33+ 8321.24) = $11,606.57

• By continuing to pay in, at the end of their fourth year, they will have gained 7.2% on the $736.54 or have reached a point whereby they would be earning $789.57 per month. Compared to the income received by previous retirees, they would be facing a net loss of (834.17- 789.57) = $44.60 per month. This does not count in the extra (180.26 X 12 = 2,163.12) $2,163.12 contributions being paid in this year. When those contributions are included in the calculation, the $53.03 in benefit amount gained through the fourth year’s additional contributions reflects a net loss of (44.60 x 12 = 535.20 + 2163.12 – 53.03 = 2645.29) $2,645.29 the cumulative loss would be (2645.29 + 11606.57) = $14,251.86

• By continuing to pay in, at the end of their fifth year, they will have gained 7.2% on the $789.57 or have reached a point whereby they would be earning $846.42 per month. Compared to the income received by previous retirees, they would be facing for the first time, at age 65 a net gain (846.42 – 846.42) = 12.25 per month over former retirees benefits received at age 60. This however, still does not count in the extra (180.26 X 12 = 2,163.12) $2,163.12 contributions being paid in this year. When those contributions are included in the calculation, the $56.85 in benefit amount gained through the fifth year’s additional contributions reflects a net loss of ( 12.25x 12 = 147.00 + 56.85 – 2163.12 =1957.27) $1925.27 the cumulative loss would be (1925.27 + 14,251.86) = $16,177.13

My firm’s would argue that post January 1, 2012 retirees would not only face an inequity with respects to not being able to use current measures to earn in excess of $70, 071.12 in the 5 years between 60 and 65, but quite too the contrary, would be facing a loss of $16,177.13 when compared to retirees that turned 60 prior to January 1st 2012.

I will seek every opportunity to bring this matter up in a court challenge that would see these changes represent an elective choice on the part of the contributor as opposed to an imposition by Dilberts in Governance. I look forward to your reply.

JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THAT IS A DIFFERENCE OF $86,248.25 which post 2012 Canadian retirees will face, and few families facing unprecedented economic challenges can afford to give up.

Former policty analyst for Minister of Social Development Canada

]]> By: Rowbow http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/major-changes-coming-to-the-canada-pension-plan/#comment-242317 Rowbow Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:45:49 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=2444#comment-242317 I am 60 and wish to start drawing my CPP and continue working.I would be off for 2 months (make less than $934 per month). But, because I don't know when this legislation will begin, I don't know when to do this? I can't get an answer from CPP nor my MP. Nobody seems to be able to give me a date. Any help/info out there? I am 60 and wish to start drawing my CPP and continue working.I would be off for 2 months (make less than $934 per month). But, because I don’t know when this legislation will begin, I don’t know when to do this? I can’t get an answer from CPP nor my MP. Nobody seems to be able to give me a date. Any help/info out there?

]]> By: apimom http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/major-changes-coming-to-the-canada-pension-plan/#comment-221166 apimom Sat, 22 May 2010 16:56:19 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=2444#comment-221166 If someone retires before age 65 at the moment there is a deduction of 0.6% per monthshy of 65 from pension payment. There is also no CPP deduction. Is there a benefit to continue CPP deductiosn to age 65 in this situation? apimom If someone retires before age 65 at the moment there is a deduction of 0.6% per monthshy of 65 from pension payment. There is also no CPP deduction. Is there a benefit to continue CPP deductiosn to age 65 in this situation?

apimom

]]> By: Betty http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/major-changes-coming-to-the-canada-pension-plan/#comment-215604 Betty Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:02:42 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=2444#comment-215604 I was buying a book & was told by the man at the bookstore that he & other people he knew got CPP without dropping their income to an extremely low level. He said I had gotten wrong information when I was told you had to do so in order to get CPP at 60. I was told the same thing in the past by a young minister, who I thought was just to young to have looked into it. The man at the bookstore said that every Canadian has the right to get CPP at 60. How did they get it? I was buying a book & was told by the man at the bookstore that he & other people he knew got CPP without dropping their income to an extremely low level. He said I had gotten wrong information when I was told you had to do so in order to get CPP at 60. I was told the same thing in the past by a young minister, who I thought was just to young to have looked into it. The man at the bookstore said that every Canadian has the right to get CPP at 60.
How did they get it?

]]>