fredsmith: (Default)
[personal profile] fredsmith

And do you know why I SHOULD win even despite all that stuff about the CPP being a self-contained contributory plan, and AVERAGE disability recipients receiving higher gross benefits to contributions ratio than able-bodied persons?

Because I'm still right. EVEN on their strongest argument.

Two reasons:

a) It is NOT the case that all disability recipients get more benefit than they contribute, or even much higher benefit than able bodied person in relation to what they contribute. THERE ARE SO MANY VARIABLES there, it depends on level of income during working life, length of disability, life expectancy while disabled or when getting a pension..etc etc That it is simply not possible to assume that just because a person has a month after their 60th birthday discounted from their contributory period due to disability, that their contribution/benefit ratio will be so different from an able bodied person that a differential method of pension calculation is the only way to even out the difference and keep the plan sustainable.

The plan completely rides roughshod over individual circumstances and makes broad generalizations based on nominal group membership.

And you may be able to distinguish based on real differnces, but you'd better be damn sure that those real differences ACTUALLY exist in each case before you do so, you can't just make a rule saying 'all disabled persons' will be treated differently, because we know that in general some of them have difference circumstances than other people on average.

That would be like saying 'no women can be firefighters' because in general women are weaker than men.

Yes, strength is a relevant characteristic to being a fire-fighter, but if that's the relevant difference MAKE THAT the relevant difference. Allow people to try, don't just blanket assume because of group membership that NO woman could ever possibly be strong enough to be a firefighter.

Is what I'm saying.


b) Who cares! Suck it up people! Yes, disability recipients maybe 'hit the jackpot' in terms of this insurance plan. They get out more than they put in. Well, except for those of them that DIE, after years of contributinng, without even being able to collect at all.

Saying that disability recipients get an unfair advantage is like saying someone whose house burns down gets an unfair advantage over people who pay house insurance who'se houses never burn down. ITS INSURANCE!

And I'll say it again, becoming disabled is something that could happen to anyone. And it sucks. The statistics on the number of disabled persons, disabled persons RECEIVING the disabiliyt benefit living WAY below the poverty line is huge, and hugely out of proportion to any other group in the country.

So We all contribute equally. We all bear the same risk. When and if the insured contingency happens we should all get the same benefit of the plan. You don't claw back a pension entitlement from a disability recipient just because they are also a disability recipient.

You take it into account in designing the plan. THIS is the cost of hte plan, and you calculate the necessary contribution level to meet these costs. And contributions should be equal to all to bear those costs, because all have equal benefit of accessing those benefits when and if they come to meet the eligibilty criteria.

Date: 2006-11-11 12:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
"The plan completely rides roughshod over individual circumstances and makes broad generalizations based on nominal group membership."

Which is why collectivism is a bad thing. *g*

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags


fredsmith: (Default)

December 2015

67891011 12
20 212223242526

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 12:05 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios