fredsmith: (Default)
[personal profile] fredsmith
Ok, Can I just say? Section 51 of the Canada Pension Plan is SO discriminatory.

Becoming disabled is an insured contingency under the plan. It could happen to anyone. The availability of the disability pension is part of what we pay our CPP contributions FOR just as much as for retirement pension. Just because the contingency occurs with less frequency than retirement does not make it any less a part of the plan.

And the availability of the drop out provisions for persons with severe and prolonged disability is not GENEROUS treatment, it is recognition of the ablist assumptions that set the normal contributory period as the years between 18 and 65 without regard to personal circumstances. The statistics show that the average earnings of people who become disabled is actually HIGHER over the years that they were able to work, than the average earnings of the general population over the years that they were able to work.

That the CPP when calculating the retirement pensions of all persons at age 65 adjusts the past contributions of persons who have experienced disability after the age of 60 by reference to PRICE indexing, rather than by WAGE indexing, which is the formula for accounting for inflation for ALL OTHER benefit recipients is ABSOLUTELY unjustifiable, and a naked cash grab by the government, TARGETED at one of the most socially and economically marginalized groups in Canada. Inflation, changes to the value and purchasing power of money over time affects all people equally, whether they are working or not, and certainly it's impact does not vary according to WHY one is not working.

It is NOT the case that we are asking the Govt to 'pretend' that they were working during the years of disablement, or asking for those non-existent wages to be indexed for inflatin, we are asking that those contributions that WERE made, in the years prior to the onset of the disability, be indexed for inflation at the same rate as are contributions made by the able-bodied.

And Section 1? YES I agree that the CPP is funded by contributions and it is important that the funding and benefit formulas are kept in ration to ensure sustainability - of course it is, but you CANNOT justify, in a free and democratic society, the unequal benefit of the law which LITERALLY devalues the ocntribuions of disabled perosns relative to the contriubtions of the able bodied, in order to avoid the political fall out of a general increase in premiums.

Not to mention that the differential treatment reduces the cost of the plan by only 0.11% of the cost of the plan, yet the impact on the disabled by lowering the value of their pension ocntriubtions at a time at the end of their live, when they have already been living on the reduced income of a disability pension... intolerable.

Sorry. As I've said, I've TOTALLY fallen for this case. I HAVE to get it out of my system.

And remind myselves of all the reasons we're going to lose OTHER than that federal court judges are cranky bastards.

[Edit: I do beleive I was more coherent than that during actual argument. I hope to god I was anyway]

Date: 2006-11-09 10:34 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Commie :)

"Call this an unfair generalization if you must, but old people are no good at everything." -- Moe Szyslak

Date: 2006-11-09 10:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Sorry that was me, not sure why I was logged out.

Date: 2006-11-10 02:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Yur, I think the 'commie' comment might have given you away regardless.

I DID manage to refrain, during my submissions, from actually saying 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs'.

That WAS the general theme tho.

Date: 2006-11-11 11:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
It's a good argument. I actually know somebody who's going through this right now -- and getting one red (haha) cent on disability is next to impossible. "You're not THAT disabled," seems to be their refrain, to avoid paying over anything from the plan to which this person has contributed since 1966.

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags


fredsmith: (Default)

December 2015

67891011 12
20 212223242526

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 12:06 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios