Is the proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan a good idea?
- Thread starter probyn
- Start date
Of course the details are to be worked out but nothing in the article suggests tax payers are on the hook. Seems to be funded by employees and their employers. If they do like the OTPP and hire a good management team instead of bureaucrats it should work fine and the investments could cover the costs, especially since it seems to say that payouts are tied to how well the investments are doing.
The benefit of the teacher's plan (besides the management) is that they have a large fund and can make investments that individuals can't. That seems to be the case here too and if lower income earners have some financial security it will be a good thing.
Do you think the OTPP fund managers work for free? Having several friends employed there at the moment, I can assure you that they do not. They are well into the .01%.
The "benefits" that you cite are valid, but they are also entirely accessible to our poor working class RIGHT NOW...if they wanted to save for their retirement. The problem is not access to the investment market. It's discipline. This is simply forced savings, and at least in part on the backs of employers.
Thats why the federal PC said no, but granny Kat and her nanny state wants to impose this on us.
We should take comfort that Wynne put Mitzie in charge, a rookie mpp with no relevant professional experience in pensions. She's just hoping the Feds will come in and bail her out.
Special
Once again,...this is just the Fiberals answer to the general publics distaste for the civil servants gold plated retirement plans,...except we pay have to pay for ours,...plus the entitled's plan.
To make the playing field fair,...the Fiberals should put in the employers share, sourced from the civil servant's plans,...since I pay for that anyway.
FAST
Once again,...this is just the Fiberals answer to the general publics distaste for the civil servants gold plated retirement plans,...except we pay have to pay for ours,...plus the entitled's plan.
To make the playing field fair,...the Fiberals should put in the employers share, sourced from the civil servant's plans,...since I pay for that anyway.
FAST
Yes, it would work similarly to CPP, where both employer and employee contribute 1.9% of pay, but unlike CPP, it would only cover workers without a "comparable workplace plan". That's where the problem lies... this plan would cover some employees for some of their careers. There's no way for the government to know how many employees will be covered and for how long (what if many employers start their own pension plan just to get out of having to join this plan and pay the 3.8% payroll tax?), and therefore no way to have any idea whether the contributions that are made will be enough to provide the promised benefit.
So ultimately there's a good chance either the taxpayers will be on the hook, or the costs to employers and employees will be much higher than currently predicted. Although I expect the most likely scenario is that this plan will never get off the ground to begin with.
And their pay is taken from the profit they make.
Actually not. Much of the reason the OTPP is so successful is that it has huge buying power. They can easily buy massive companies when us individuals can't. If I could buy into OTPP or a similar plan (I wouldn't qualify for the ORPP) I'd do it in a minute. Yes with discipline a low income earner could put some away but the returns would be significantly lower.
As I said, the details are unclear but if done right, all of the management costs including tracking details would be taken from the fund's profit (not that I trust any politician to do it right without a lot of pressure).
@sniper, I'm sure that plans like the OTPP do a good job of tracking contribution details. No reason with this new one couldn't.
What basketcase said. Plus they deal with much larger trades as they manage the funds, etc. A lot fewer investment advisors and trade execution venues getting a slice here and there out of the pot.
Can you opt out or is it mandatory? If mandatory, the Ontario Liberal government is making the bold assumption that Andult Ontarians are incapable of providing for their own retirement.
I am self employed and will never pay into this. It's just another scam to get our money. If they say it's mandatory, I'm out of this fucking province and will move to Alberta. No provincial tax there.
Completely agree. Why should all of us support a subset of the population who have chosen to "live in the moment" instead of saving for their retirement? The irony is that if this subset makes it to retirement, we will end up supporting them anyway because they will likely end up on social assistance.
Which—as you just said—makes it smarter and cheaper to put aside a bit of cash now and have it compound in a general fund, instead of waiting until the ragged, grizzled old homeless guys are pounding on the tinted windows of your SUV, and you're being taxed to buy more cops to TASER™ them back.
Not to mention, this far out, there's no guarantee which side of the glass you'll be on.
This
You make a fundamental assumption that this new Ontario plan would be run like the Teachers or OMERS...and not like CPP. Why?
I'm not sure what your level of finance/investment knowledge is, but returns are generally positively correlated with risk. Yes, the big pension funds have done very well lately. But, do you forget when they were getting their asses kicked only a few years ago? Big positions can also equal big losses.
If buying massive companies is the key to success, any one of us could buy a piece of the biggest companies in the world.
Granted, one of the "advisors" to set up the ontario plan is Michael Nobrega. The guy is brilliant.
The horse won't drink
Consider that the more "income" they have,...the "Ont. retirement plan",...the less they get from the Fed plan.
This idea is inflationary,...is selective, does NOT include everybody,...typical left solution,...and solves nothing.
FAST
No matter what you attempt to do for this subset,...the end result will be the same,...
Consider that the more "income" they have,...the "Ont. retirement plan",...the less they get from the Fed plan.
This idea is inflationary,...is selective, does NOT include everybody,...typical left solution,...and solves nothing.
FAST
If "…the Fed plan" you're talking about is CPP, you get the same amount no matter what other income you have; you contributed, the plan made money, you get your share. If "…the Fed plan was meant to refer to the Old Age Supplement, that is income dependent so the more income you have the less the government pays out to keep you sleeping off the sidewalk. I assume you think that prudenmt parsimoniousness that is A Good Thing from where you sit over on the right. Am I wrong? Are you in favour of paying those better off, but not the needy?
In any case both those amounts and the notional Ontario Pension, in due course are subject to income tax, so the bottom line will be more money for Queen's Park and Ottawa to operate in the black if none of us are poor enough to need these pensions.
With that in mind, your 'points' are as useful as discussing the aerodynamics of bacon.
Somewhat related to savings for retirement. Please careful out there.
http://www.newsday.com/news/new-yor...last-surviving-son-dies-from-cancer-1.9214667
http://www.newsday.com/news/new-yor...last-surviving-son-dies-from-cancer-1.9214667
