Economy 52,845 Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-retirement-age-in-canada-is-too-low-and-thats-a-growing-problem/amp/ Canada stubbornly refuses the pension reforms that most of the developed world is either in the proccess of doing or has done already including: Britain, Norway, Portugal, USA, Germany, Italy and more As a result of longer life expectancies, lower birth rates and ageing population Nations have made raising retirement to 67 (some like Italy 68) an unpopular yet necessairy reality Canada does not have any plans to raise the 65 age standard despite life expectancy rising a full 10 years since CPP implementation (72 years in 1965 vs 82 now). Average benefits increased from 7 years to 17 now. Ironically Canadas Retirement Fund is one of the most well funded in the world at Present. However that is more a result of luck as many large equity investments turned out exellent returns. However as the baby boomers retire and population keeps ageing, random luck on investments and high immigration is likely to be sufficient without reforms to go along with it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,845 Posted November 9, 2019 Author Share Posted November 9, 2019 So Canadians... do we raise it or keep it at 65? @OBEY @PunkTheFunk @JustinTrudeau @juicyjuicy @VANTABLACK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PunkTheFunk 125,703 Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 Just now, Economy said: So Canadians... do we raise it or keep it at 65? @OBEY @PunkTheFunk @JustinTrudeau @juicyjuicy @VANTABLACK It doesn't matter because I'll be retiring early anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,845 Posted November 9, 2019 Author Share Posted November 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, PunkTheFunk said: It doesn't matter because I'll be retiring early anyway Wish i had those means Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaLuna 12,732 Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 Hey, I'm Canadian too, I'm offended you didn't tag me Just kidding It depends on the kind of job, really. My mom was a nurse and she had to retire at 60 because she couldn't do it anymore, her job was taking a toll on her mental and physical health. For some jobs it's more of a possibility. For example I'm a translator and I could see myself working until my late 60s or even after retiring to make some money on the side. Sure life expanctancy is longer, but people in their 60s also have lots of health problems, and I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to work until they're 67 or 68. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,845 Posted November 9, 2019 Author Share Posted November 9, 2019 1 minute ago, LaLuna said: Hey, I'm Canadian too, I'm offended you didn't tag me Just kidding It depends on the kind of job, really. My mom was a nurse and she had to retire at 60 because she couldn't do it anymore, her job was taking a toll on her mental and physical health. For some jobs it's more of a possibility. For example I'm a translator and I could see myself working until my late 60s or even after retiring to make some money on the side. Sure life expanctancy is longer, but people in their 60s also have lots of health problems, and I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to work until they're 67 or 68. I think highly physical jobs like construction could be exempted anyway u said its not realistic. But u can easily argue no reforms are also not realistic given more retirees other countries are doing it. Ppl are working those extra 2 years and its been realistic for them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinTrudeau 2,419 Posted November 10, 2019 Share Posted November 10, 2019 If I remember correctly, the university professors prefer higher retirement ages (we used to have 60 till recently I believe?) so they can stay at work doing their research and complain how young people don't get it (I'm half joking on that last part). TBH I really don't understand the benefits of increasing the age?... I feel like more people should be ok with the concept of relaxing. Retirement can bring so much good, and some seniors still work part-time or volunteer to keep themselves busy while others are on permanent beach vacation mode. Nothing wrong with each perspective. Why work till you die? We should have the choice to enjoy life after work, and 10+ years of travelling, vacations, hobbies, hanging out with family, etc is wonderful! Just because we live longer doesn't mean we have to work longer... Of course, if the pension plan is crap, that's a different story. I fell down the stairs once as an actor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenPonyboy 2,434 Posted November 10, 2019 Share Posted November 10, 2019 32 minutes ago, JustinTrudeau said: If I remember correctly, the university professors prefer higher retirement ages (we used to have 60 till recently I believe?) so they can stay at work doing their research and complain how young people don't get it (I'm half joking on that last part). TBH I really don't understand the benefits of increasing the age?... I feel like more people should be ok with the concept of relaxing. Retirement can bring so much good, and some seniors still work part-time or volunteer to keep themselves busy while others are on permanent beach vacation mode. Nothing wrong with each perspective. Why work till you die? We should have the choice to enjoy life after work, and 10+ years of travelling, vacations, hobbies, hanging out with family, etc is wonderful! Just because we live longer doesn't mean we have to work longer... Of course, if the pension plan is crap, that's a different story. Since people are loving longer that means they get benefit longer which means more money. If they dont raise theretirement age, they will need to find the money somewhere else to pay for benefits and since boomers are about to retire, that cost will likely fall on the younger generation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinTrudeau 2,419 Posted November 10, 2019 Share Posted November 10, 2019 1 minute ago, GoldenPonyboy said: Since people are loving longer that means they get benefit longer which means more money. If they dont raise theretirement age, they will need to find the money somewhere else to pay for benefits and since boomers are about to retire, that cost will likely fall on the younger generation Thank you! Guess my brain wasn't working tonight, it makes sense now. I fell down the stairs once as an actor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,845 Posted November 10, 2019 Author Share Posted November 10, 2019 3 hours ago, JustinTrudeau said: Thank you! Guess my brain wasn't working tonight, it makes sense now. Yeah what @GoldenPonyboy more retirees and fewer people working means more collecting benefits and fewer deducting into it. It will put a lot of financial pressure into it if you work you may have noticed that CPP deductioms went up some 2 years ago and thats mainly because the old deductions were no longer sufficient to sustain the program the Government called it “enhanced CPP” to raise payout benefits but that was a smoke screen because the benefits were only marginally increased while deductions nearly doubled As the boomers enter retirement the system will be even more pressured and its not just the pension fund its also government revenues as fewer workers means less income tax revenue and it also means more old age security benefit costs (the retirement supplement that comes directly from Government budget not the fund) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenPonyboy 2,434 Posted November 10, 2019 Share Posted November 10, 2019 5 hours ago, Economy said: Yeah what @GoldenPonyboy more retirees and fewer people working means more collecting benefits and fewer deducting into it. It will put a lot of financial pressure into it if you work you may have noticed that CPP deductioms went up some 2 years ago and thats mainly because the old deductions were no longer sufficient to sustain the program the Government called it “enhanced CPP” to raise payout benefits but that was a smoke screen because the benefits were only marginally increased while deductions nearly doubled As the boomers enter retirement the system will be even more pressured and its not just the pension fund its also government revenues as fewer workers means less income tax revenue and it also means more old age security benefit costs (the retirement supplement that comes directly from Government budget not the fund) It actually kind of worries because wages are not going up yet we are expected to foot a bigger bill. And its not like boomers are saving up money for later on, most of them rely on CPP. Im afraid to see what my paycheck is gonna look like when im 40 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,845 Posted November 10, 2019 Author Share Posted November 10, 2019 3 hours ago, GoldenPonyboy said: It actually kind of worries because wages are not going up yet we are expected to foot a bigger bill. And its not like boomers are saving up money for later on, most of them rely on CPP. Im afraid to see what my paycheck is gonna look like when im 40 Harper had made plans to raise CPP and OAS to 67 by mid 2020s but Trudeau reversed it one thing i hate about politics is ppl never want Government to do necessairy things that might be unpleasent and often Governments wont to not displease the people and keep approval ratings up Both the people and politicians are at fault there Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.99c40bc2a10ded8236a48b4fe15c6be8.jpg)
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.