fredsmith: (Default)
[personal profile] fredsmith
One last thing, and I swear I'll stop writing, and maybe I'll then be able to stop re-litigating this case in my head over and over.

What if it's not a legal decision? What if it's a political one? Cos THAT might be a reason why I should lose.

I mean, not on the a) 'stupid generalizations' argument below, but the b) 'suck it up' argument.

Stupid generalizations is a legal argument. You can't do that. But whether to ask the general public to 'suck it up' or not might just be a policy decision.

The fact is that because of the disabilty drop out provisions, there is a resulting imbalance in the Plan between normal contributions and normal benefits. So some way has to be found to keep the plan sustainable.

We have experience over time of the plan, so we know what the shortfall is. There are different ways we can make up this short fall. We can a) increase contribution levels accross teh board b) increase investments c) reduce benefits.

If we increase contributions, that affects everyone. But does it affect everyone equally? CPP benefits are EXTRAORDINARILY regressive. That is, they are a flat percentage of income up to a cut off point.

This means that their impact on poor people is way harsher than on rich people.

Like, If have to hand over 10% of my income, and I'm barely scraping by on what I make, then that extra 10% cut off could push me over the brink into into poverty.

But if I'm hugely wealthy, I could lose 10% of my income and barely feel it, even though in gross terms it is a much larger amount of money.

And the CPP is even harsher, because you only have to contribute on money up to the national average. So people who earn over the national average are effectively only contributing 7% or 5% or less of their actual income.

So we can't be cavaleier about just saying 'raise everyone's contribution rates equally' because it can have a DEVASTATING impact on some people.

And maybe those people would choose to take the risk. I'd rather have contributions levels at a rate I can handle, and if I ever get disabled? Ok, I'll take the slightly lesser pension entitlement.

Maybe that's a decision that can get made in a democratic society.

And maybe it's not a LEGAL argument about whether its fair or not to emake that call. As long as the disabled, or those who recognize that they may one day become disabled, had a say in the democratic process, and the current CPP did under go two years of studies and public consultations before they decided on the pension calculation formulas.. then .. Maybe I should lose anyway. On THAT argument at least.

I still think the 'bogus generalization' argument works, and if you really want to claw back, you have to tailor it in a way that actually makes sense, and captures the differences that you really want to capture instead of generalizing and guessing based on stereotype.

Date: 2006-11-11 12:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Hm, I just realized that I've only ever had one job where money was deducted from my cheque for UI, CPP, stuff like that. And the boss said "CPP is optional" and to this day I get statements from the government showing my contributions as zero.

I wonder where that $0.33 per paycheque really went.

Date: 2006-11-13 02:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Seriously? Optional? That's.. pretty rare and unlikely.

Are you employed in:

(a) agriculture or an agricultural enterprise, horticulture, fishing, hunting, trapping, forestry, logging or lumbering by an employer who either pays the employee less than two hundred and fifty dollars in cash remuneration in a year or employs the employee, on terms providing for payment of cash remuneration, for a period of less than twenty-five working days in a year"

(b) employment of a casual nature otherwise than for the purpose of the employer’s trade or business?

(c) employment as a teacher on exchange from a country other than Canada?

(d) employment of a person by the person’s spouse or common-law partner, unless the remuneration paid to the person may be deducted under the Income Tax Act in computing the income of the spouse or common-law partner;

(e) as a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of perpetual poverty and whose remuneration is paid either directly or by the member to the order;

(f) employment for which no cash remuneration is paid where the person employed is the child of, or is maintained by, the employer;

(g) employment as a member of the Canadian Forces or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, except as provided by any other Act of Parliament;

(h) employment in Canada by an employer who employs persons in Canada but under the terms of a reciprocal agreement between the Government of Canada and the government of another country is exempt from liability to make the contribution imposed on an employer by this Act;

(i) employment by Her Majesty in right of a province or by an agent of Her Majesty in right of a province;

(j) employment in Canada by the government of a country other than Canada or by an international organization;

(j.1) employment of an Indian, as defined in the Indian Act, in respect of which the earnings are not included in computing income for purposes of the Income Tax Act; or

(k) employment excepted from pensionable employment by a regulation made under section 7.

Employed in international transportation?

Do you make less than $3500.00 in employment income per year?

Seriously, you could get well dinged at tax time if the gov't decides you SHOULD have been paying, and decides to come after it all at once. Just sayin'

Date: 2006-11-14 12:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I still wonder about that. It came off my cheques (which sucked because instead of making $10 an hour I was making like $9.60) but every so often I get the CPP statement and it reads "zero."

Of course, since becoming a bike messenger there's been a few years where I've made less than $3500 a year. *g*

Date: 2006-11-17 07:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I found out - deductions are automatic, no matter what you make, but if at the end of the year your contributions are under the low-income cut off, the CPP 'deems' you to have made zero contributions. You can then actually apply for a refund of the amounts that were deducted, although there may be a time limit on that. Most people don't bother for the $0.33.

Date: 2006-11-13 02:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
That aside, you READ and COMMENTED on my obsessive law-drivel! YAY!

Thanks for that :)

Date: 2006-11-14 12:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Not at all, it's interesting. Also, you explain things very well. If all else fails you could always teach.

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