Thomas Paine responds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

Canada's CPP is in comparatively better shape. The liberals doubled the CPP tax on young people. After all, it wouldn't be fair to deny the old people the benefits to which they feel entitled but neglected to pay for. So, if you are young, your taxes doubled but your benefit stayed the same so that the old need not worry about their handouts. Young people: suffering so you don't have to.

Thanks old people! You thieving, selfish louts…

As for Medicare, those same old people may be in trouble when they need treatment to stay alive. I'd take that free CPP money and spend it buy private insurance in the US cause the gov'ment is going to lengthen the waiting lists till you all die on it waiting for care… That's what you lot get for electing trudeau.

I can't remember where I read about this methodology of forcing everyone to be in debt to ensure they have no leftover money to demand the rights and other stupid stuff.

Currency Devaluation - the only way out. (If you can call it a 'way' out.

aka printing money - which gov'ments of the world are already doing.

Yes, well, according to Obama's politics and personal views, wealth = greed, so he's just making sure every American family has the same standard of living as the most remote, 3rd World nation out there.

In the name of "equality" and all that.

Jason go screw yourself.
I have been working for over 45 years and paying into CPP for about 40 years. What I will receive in CCP benefits monthly when I finally retire will not even cover what I pay in taxes every week at the present time.
When we "thieving, selfish louts" finally die off, you lazy young over privileged jerkoffs will be inheriting a whole lot of money you haven't earned and in cases likes yours don't deserve.

I'm sure glad you aren't my kid. I can see you now."Dad isn't going to make it pull the plug"
"But sir he only has a broken hip"

If referring to the Hyppies, Trudeau included, then Jason makes a point

largs,

If one group is asked to pay double what another group is charged for the same thing to make up what the previous lot didn't pay for, what do you call it?

I could give a flying f*** how long you worked. EVERY generation in history past, present and future goes through the same damn thing. You are born, you work, you grow old, you die. This does not entitle you to steal the future out from those that follow you.

The "but I paid so I earned it" doesn't cut it and isn't true. Simply put, if you earned it where's the money? If you earned it, why is the bill being presented to others? It's like going to a restaurant and throwing $5 on the table and ordering the lobster and champagne while claiming to have paid.

Your lot leave us with enormous unfunded liabilities you will not pay before your death. Your generation leaves without paying off the national and provincial debts you racked up. Your generation leaves us with crumbling infrastructure because you didn't maintain it. Etc. Etc. Etc. ad nauseum.

Whine all you want. It's the people who come after you who you buggered over and who get to clean up your mess and pay the tab your generation didn't pay. These truths may anger you but your whining anger doesn't negate the verifiable and undeniable facts of the matter.

Oh, and to talk of inheritance is to make yourself look even dumber. What Canada did your generation inherit and how's that working out? What did you lot do with it? What are you leaving behind? Fool.

Jason - 1:09pm

It is easy to tell by your statement about old folks getting CPP benefits they didn't pay for that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The rule is pretty simple -and you should be able to understand "simple" - if you don't pay into CPP you don't get benefits. Anyone in Canada today that gets CPP benefits has had to make contributions.

A little apology to our seniors I'm sure would be well received. So apologize already then go to your room.

I completely agree with Jason.

Nix the name calling or I will delete you.

The CPP doesn't amount to much and I wouldn't miss it if it was gone. Call me naive but I think one should have an individual pension plan. Just my thoughts.
That being said, what's going on in the US is chilling. Did someone tell Obama that he is frittering away HIS children's future?

Unfunded pension plans are the next time bomb. Air Canada's PP is $Billion$ in the hole.

Auto workers bailout. Who will bail out the bailouters ?? The taxpayer !? Our kids ?

In Canada, the whole problem started with Trudeau's deficit spending.

Socialism always fails when it runs out of other people's money.

This bone chillin' fact looks good on America. Rightoids want to reduce taxes and leftards just want without repercussions. Both idiotic scenarios. Did I mention it looks good on them.

Whoa hoe take the money and run....

if you don't pay into CPP you don't get benefits. Anyone in Canada today that gets CPP benefits has had to make contributions.


it's easy to see that you have no idea what you're talking about, different bob. Yes, paying into CPP entitles you to receive CPP. But for years people have been paying into CPP at a rate much lower than required in order to meet the payouts they will be receiving. Please see Jason's analogy of dropping a $5 bill for a lobster and champagne dinner if you still have trouble grasping this extremely simple concept.

a different bob

The previous generations did not fund CPP enough to cover what they will take out. Otherwise, premiums for those who follow would not have to double to keep the fund solvent. What part of that very, very simple math is hard to understand?

It's referred to as "unfunded" liabilities for a very good reason. When the liberals looked at the very deep hole in the CPP actuarial equation there is any combination of two things to fix it: reduce benefits for those who didn't pay enough to fund the benefits the will receive and/or raise premiums for those who follow to make up the shortfall. Old people vote and babies can't. Guess what happened? Old people were allowed to continue to rape the nations coffers while the nation's children were told they will pay for the mistakes of their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents.

And this is only one of the ways today's old people have selfishly taken care of themselves at other people's expense. If you even attempt to justify it you shouldn't consider yourself a conservative. You haven't earned that right. The same people here whine at the idea they will be asked to make up the shortfall in the GM and Chrysler pensions. What makes you better?

So an apology is in order but I suggest the old apologize to every child they see. The younger you are, the lower your standard of living will be in the future while you pay the legacy costs of greedy people who feel entitled to take out more than they put in.

Jason - 1:58pm

You make some good points and you're right about leaving a big debt for the next generations. How about this for a solution - at death the government puts on say a 80% tax on the total value of a person's estate.

That would direct a huge amount of money to the government to help pay off that debt. Of course it sure would cut into the amount left for heirs and beneficiaries but you won't mind that would you Jason? After all its today's seniors and the boomers that created the debt so it should be OK with you and your generation that the wealth left behind by these cohorts should be used to retire that debt.

Then, instead of inheriting a huge amount of wealth from today's old and the boomers, whiners like you will have to get to work and earn your own wealth.

Personally - I think that if a person dies with anymore than $10 in their pocket just didn't plan it right.

not stirred enough, there's nothing idiotic about reducing taxes. Reducing taxes brings foreign investments and businesses. These bring more jobs, and lowers unemployment and welfare rates. More jobs mean competition for employees, meaning higher wages, which means more taxes collected. Lower unemployment and welfare rates mean less money needed by government to meet UI and welfare obligations.

From what I've heard from my mom if it wasn't for 3 combined pensions she'd be screwed today at 75 and both her and my father paid into the system, my dad only living to collect for 3 years before his death... Here's the thing... why does the average CPP cheque range in the 500-600 a month range when the standard for poverty in Canada is over 20k annually???

The system needs to be gutted and revamped... moneys need to be invested not banked...invested in the Banks...they're laughing with all the bail out cash states side and the Canadian system is still seeing profits in a down economy...

When someone from outside of Canada can come here and apply for social assistance immediately and receive basically free money there's a bigger problem then CPP

When someone can come here from a forigen country and work 360 hours (9 weeks) on an oil rig for $40 or more an hour and potentially collect 35% of that as income for the balance of the year or for 43 weeks @ $14 an hour and that's more then what our seniors receive, theres a basic problem with the system...

a different bob

I don't expect any inheritance. I have earned my way (including working more than one job through university) and started my working career when taxes were already high. As a generation, people in my age bracket will do better than those who come after me. I speak for them more than myself.

As for inheritance taxes, the US already has them and a lot of good it's done. It's nowhere near enough to cover the debt. Louses skip out on their debts.

Frankly every generation has individuals who contribute more and less (as will always be the case.) Only the last few have taken out more than you put back as a whole.

Those in my generation will have no choice in the matter as the cupboard is bare (and since they were raised by boomers would most likely do no better.)

Your generation will be damned in history for the short time our civilization will last.

Jason you definitly need a recalocular adjustment of at lest get you head out of your ass. Us old farts paid every penny into CPP that was asked of us. So why am I supposed to feel bad about what you are going to have to pay? Hell, the Big O to the south has his children's grandkids paying for his spending already. Who knew back in the say your $.25 loaf of bread would cost $2.25 now? 39 cents a gallon of gas and a monthly wage of $300/mo didn't leave much space to put in a couple of hundred aside so the future governments could piss it away. KD isn't poor folk food anymore.

Before you were even having to pay taxes I was throwing money into the government coffers so the government of the day could appologize for somebody or other and try to make it up with dollars. Chinese head tax comes to mind. I will also point out that if that CPP money had been kept separate and invested wisely instead of going to "general Revenue" then this wouldn't be a problem today.

I also got downsized by Cretien and his gang of thieves but couldn't collect a cent of the 23 years of Unemployment Insursnce contributions. some frikkin insurance. And by the way, my military pension (which I paid into) magically drops by the amount of CPP I'm entitled to at 65. Some benefit, eh.

Short and sweet: Jason grow up and start paying taxes.

I would tend to agree with Jason that pension plans in general and CPP in particular has been, from the get go, a giant ponzi scheme.

The biggest problem with the scheme is that the debt was shifted to the upcoming generation except no one bothered to beget the following generation in sufficient numbers to meet the pension obligations.

What to do, what to do? I know! Immigration!!!!

OMG.... Joe...please read my comment...LOL!!!

a different bob

Oh, and speaking of inheritances, did your generation not have parents? Where you all hatched? Was no wealth passed to your generation, also? That you did (as a generation) is obvious. That you spent it, your wealth and that of several generation yet to come is also obvious. At least to those not of the "me" generation.

You lot talk like the cycle of life, a few billion years in the making started at your own birth. Where you are on it at any given time isn't the point. What you do from beginning to end is. We're all going to go through the same cycle. Too many old people think themselves entitle just because they're old.

You read accounts of people who lived long ago who figured they were caretakers of society for the future. You lot see the reverse. You see the future as yours to spend on yourself.

Wow you really hate old people don't you kid.
What happened mommy did hug you enough?

In the voice of Ron MacLean - CBC Sports

Welcome back. Sorry but Don can't make it today.

Well that was an exciting 2 hours of commenting with Jason and Different Bob certainly going at it in the corners.

Lots of arguments for the left and the right. It'll be interesting to see how the comment thread finishes.

So, all you kids out there, when you gotta go, just remember to CPP.

pete,

Your logic is sound and I agree with it to a point. The point where it goes offside is what individuals do with the money they now have instead of paying taxes.

Offshore accounts, offshore investing, squirreling, foreign holidays, foreign purchases and a whole host of other stuff that does nothing to build a national economy.

Taxation has to be sensible and realistic but it has to ahve a direct affect on making a nation stronger not just entitle.

For a guy supposedly university educated you don't seem to know alot about which generations had wealth and which didn't. There has never been wealth in our society like the wealth generated in the last 25 years. Boomer parents are leaving some wealth but it pales in comparison to the wealth that boomers already have.

As for my parents - they raised a family of nine on a one-income government paycheck. Not alot of inheritance to be had there and they didn't get much when their parents passed away.

By the way - now that you're working and earning a living maybe you'd like to send some money to the university you went to. You must know that it cost a one hell of a lot more to educate you than you had to pay. So, how about it?

Texas Canuck

Do you think you are the first people on earth to be born, grow old and then die?

Do you think inflation is a new thing?

Funny, you vote in government which buy your votes then use the excuse that the same government didn't ask you to pay more? It isn't what was asked of you that is the problem. The problem is what you asked of the government (collectively) in relation to what you paid. In the case of today's old people, they don't line up.

For the record, I've been paying taxes for some time now and at a higher rate than when you started working and, like every generation in history, will do so for my whole life. But you don't follow that logic and obviously don't comprehend that you are not special. That you are not heroic and have not made any special sacrifice merely be being old. The one caveat is that military service is different although it has to be pointed out that a whole lot of defined benefit pensions drop when you get CPP. Most companies don't even offer defined benefit plans any more so that issue will become moot for anyone but government workers.

The point is that you should be able to enjoy the fruits of success you earned. You should not enjoy the fruits of no success which wasn't earned regardless of age. As a generation, you're demanding more than you paid for and using very lame excuses why the debts and liabilities you leave behind aren't your fault. Which, come to think of it, makes you sound like a liberal.

I also completely agree with Jason. I think the Baby boomers are going to be considered the most crooked generation.

@a different Bob (1:59) & Largs: the CPP is an aggregate over a population (and this case generation), what you individually did is beside the point. The fact that the CPP is an unfunded liability means, as any accountant will tell you, what it owes out is more than what is there! Your generation did not pay its fair share, either because your contributions were not high enough, your investments were poor, or you redirected your contributions to general government revenue. If you had paid your fair share, then as a percentage of GDP, the government debt over your generation would have gone down, and similarly with percentage of the CPP to GDP that was funded.

not stirred, offshore accounts only exist because of high taxes. If you can invest your extra money and see a reasonable return, you won't have need of offshore accounts.

I have saved a lot of money over the years because I have no company or government pension. I did without a lot of life's pleasures including vacations, toys, new cars, summer cottages, new televisions, eating out etc. I didn't mind since I felt it was more important to be prepared for the future than to have the indulgences that most believe they are entitled to. I have been self-employed my whole career. I now collect both CP and Old age pensions. Combined total just over 900 per month.

Because our government as well as the US government have meddled extensively in the market and continually changed the rules mid stream, I will have a lot less income in the future. I have never taken any other money from any government, but at this point, I feel the government owes me that paltry sum which is far less than they give to ingrate immigrants most of whom will never contribute nearly as much as they will take out.

My retirement will be modest, but with no debt and thrifty living, I should be fine.

Some of my fiends will retire with a fat government pension which you and I pay for. The difference is that I have always enjoyed what I did for my living and those government drones are full of regret that they spent their lives working in a thankless process that was meaningless and we all would have done just fine without. I call that a wasted life.

I feel that my self-reliance has made me happier and more content than those who have simply lined up at a trough. The choice is between living like a eagle or a pig.

What did you choose?

a different bob

Again, life cycle. Funny, old people always point to school and say: "see, you don't have it so bad" except that over my lifetime, I will have to pay for all government services my generation will rack up PLUS part of the services YOUR generation recieved but didn't pay for - PLUS interest. The folliwing generation will pay what my generation doesn't as well as for themselves.

So right back at you. The math is over a lifetime, not by the time you graduate university. (deleted)

... any more insults Jason and your posts will be deleted ~ Paul

Pension plans a Ponzi scheme now !? Just wait.

In a couple of decades or so, most countries will be looking at zero population growth - negative even. You think there are not enough youngins paying in at the bottom now.

Just saying, as child bearing and rearing is a huge commitment - financially and otherwise.

Same actuarial math goes for medicare, gov'ment debt, ect.

Ron,

Take away immigration and we already have negative population growth in all of the western world except the US which has bare replacement.

Western society is doomed.

Garbage in - garbage out. The present old folks plus the boomers will leave far more wealth behind than the debt they have helped to create. Its up to governments to tax it to help pay off the debt. If they don't do that and let it flow to your generation are you going to do the right thing with it and voluntarily pay down the debt?

I'm not advocating for estate taxes but on the other hand after I die what do I care what happens to money I no longer need. If the government uses it to pay off debt then your generation should have no trouble paying for the things you need and want in life since there is not more debt to service.

We don't have a debt problem when the wealth exists to pay it down. It's the polical will to do it that is lacking.

As posted earlier, the raiding of CPP surplus early in the programme is the main contributing factor.
How much of the raided money ended up in the pockets of high placed LIBRANOs???

"Its up to governments to tax it to help pay off the debt."

Bulls**t.

Governments are a direct reflection of the morals and values of the people who send them there.

It's up to the electorate to demand that the government do the right thing. It is we who demanded they do the wrong thing.

Don't pass the buck. That's how you got us to where we are.

Jason the one point you may not have considered is that CPP are taxable benefits. You are right in that some never paid the maximum or for that many years. Don't confuse CPP with OAS which ensures a better brand of dog food. If CPP did not pay then OAS would. Also consider you have the advantage of the TFSA. You can build your investments tax free and old farts never had that option. When you take money out of an RSP, say 10,000 they withhold 20% for taxes. If you are above that bracket you will pay more. Just sayin'.

Momar,

I have saved a lot of money over the years because I have no company or government pension. I did without a lot of life's pleasures including vacations, toys, new cars, summer cottages, new televisions, eating out etc.

I call that living like a mole! Personally I have indulged myself on every front. The difference being I'm super motivated and worked smart to apy for my excessive lifestyle.

Speedy

First, we're talking generations, not individuals. There are plenty of deadbeats in my generation (they were raised by the boomers after all,) and plenty of good people in older ones. My generation will not pillage the future because they won't have that opportunity. There is nothing left to steal. The fact remains though, if you are over somewhere between 55 and 60 years old today, as a whole, complete generation, you are responsible for the debt. Period. People after that age (or thereabouts) may certainly have decided to continue that moral rot if given the chance but that chance won't be available. Over the lifetimes of someone younger than 55-60ish, they will pay more than they receive. The younger, the more they will pay and the less they will receive in return. The math just works that way.

Second, the tax rate has risen very dramatically in relation to what the tax rate was in say, 1967 (the year before trudeau.) So, although the government has thrown a few bones out there, the tax burden is hugely bigger than it was. TSFA's will do very little to mitigate it. RRSP's less so as they are what is replacing all those defined benefit pensions no longer offered (and never actually funded.)

All you need to know is that in 1967 there was very little debt and zero unfunded liabilities in programs. In 2009 there is enormous debt and even bigger gaps in funding on programs that didn't even exist for the generation which preceded today's old people. Most of the programs were designed to help the depression generation but the money was mostly spent on the next couple of generations which didn't even suffer the hardship of the depression and were capable of funding their own lifestyle even if they chose not to. The boomers will finish the pot off. Then the illegal aliens will be travelling in the other direction.

Western society: good while it lasted.

I meant people somewhere between 55 and 60 on up, not just the people between 55-60. That's the approximate cut-off.

Rather than holler at all the old people pulling CPP or social security, maybe a little introspection is in order. Most of them paid more than they are going to pull.

Problem is that its all a government solution, and we know how well those work.

No matter how much taxes our snot-nosed gen x gen y generation is going to pour into the system, its going to be our kids who are screwed over the worst.

"No matter how much taxes our snot-nosed gen x gen y generation is going to pour into the system, its going to be our kids who are screwed over the worst."

That's pretty much what I said. But with the addition that CPP is just the tip of the iceberg.

I would differ on the idea that "Most of them paid more than they are going to pull." If that was so, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

Those with high incomes (actual high incomes, not the ludicrous "high income" definition set out by the tax man...) of course will have paid more but the older you are, the less likely that is and the less you made, the less likely that is.

I suppose I should raise the age though, those as low as 55-60 may well still be alive when we hit the wall and they won't be in a position to adapt.

It seems to me that the debt issue in the US is solidly the domain of the movement conservatives. If you look at a graph of debt to GDP ratio (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html) it came down from WWII, leveled off under Nixon, skyrocketed under Reagan (times seem great on borrowed money), decreased under Clinton, and then continued up under Bush the younger. Seems to me the "don't tax but spend like crazy" Republicans have something to learn about fiscal responsibility. The only solution they have now is to inflate their way out of the problem which is why they have their money printing machine running overtime right now and why the US dollar will soon be on par with the peso.

Once again, I find my self forced to inject simple mathematics into an emotional debate.

Jason, I instinctively agreed with you, but I checked the math.

Largs worked 40 years. I don't have access to all the tables and interest rates available, so I'm going to make some assumptions: Currently, the max annual contribution to CPP in Ontario is just over $2110. I'm sure when Largs started, it was probably closer to $100, but let's say it was $300 just to be generous. The average of the two is $1205. I don't know what type of returns the the CPP has enjoyed, but I'm sure it has fluctuated, so I'm going to use 6% annually as an average over the 40 years. It really doesn't make much difference. Now, using Excel's Future Value function, that works out as follows:

The FV of $2,410 (remember, the employer matches your contribution, so we have to double the $1,205) for 40 years at 6% is $372,000. That's what Largs contributions are worth.

Now, again assuming an annual rate of 6%, and that Largs lives until 85 (i.e. draws 20 years of benefits), Excel's PPMT function lets you calculate what his investment is worth each month. In Largs' case, he should receive $2,658 each month; this is not quite 3 times the maximum CPP benefit for 2009.

At that rate, Largs' account doesn't go into deficit until the last year of his life.

Now, let's divide that payment by half, so he gets $1,300 per month, which is still about 50% more than the current max. In this case, Largs' account actually grows each year; when he kicks at 85, his account is worth over $600,000.

But, of course, the payment is adjusted each year by the CPI, so let's assume that the CPI is 1% less each year than the interest earned on the account, and that each month's payment is increased by that amount each year. At this rate, at 85, Largs' account is worth just less than $300,000. And remember, that with CPP payments 50% higher than today's maximum.

Let's use 4% for the interest rate, and 3% for the CPI, average, and a monthly payment roughly equal to today's max. At 85, Largs' account is still worth over $58,000. If he's lucky enough, his account is still positive until he's 89.

Now, at 70, a non-smoking, non-alcoholic male whose a little overweight, moderately active, with high blood pressure (just as an example) has a life expectancy of about 12 years. Not wishing anything bad on Largs, but most Canadian men (including me - I'm hoping to make 60!) are gone by the time they're 85.

In summary, Largs was right - he's quite unlikely to ever recover the value of his CPP payments. If you want to do the work, Jason, and send me the last 40 years of returns on the CPP portfolio, max benefits paid, and the CPI, I can do a more detailed analysis, but I think it will just show the same thing.

Now, be a good lad, and apologize.

One correction Ken ... Clinton did not bring down debt, the bond market revolt and Gingrich did. He tried to pull an Obama, but was stopped.

Obama's forecasted spending will likely be halted by the bond market as well ... China today, as a matter of fact, began selling its US bonds. The projected debt is too large to "inflate" out of ... Obama will pull back on his spending ... he'll have no choice.

Then, people like you will credit him for "reducing" debt. Funny ... considering that he intends on increasing US debt more than all other presidents combined.

Since 1966 the life expectancy in Canada has gone up over 7 years for Canadians, but the retirement age has not changed. We should modify the minimum age on which CPP can be drawn done on by 7 years, and then index it to changes in life expectancy.

Ken

It's far more complicated than that. The GOP spent too much. Granted. But don't think the Dems did anything good. The spending from the Carter years gave Reagan the 20% interest rates which swelled the deficit. It was Reagan's Fed Chair that reversed the destruction.

Clinton had the unsustainable revenue from the tech bubble but (like all the others GOP and Dem) did nothing to fund future liabilities. Bush Jr wasn't a conservative and added a lot more than just the debt to the books (the unfunded liability of his idiotic drug benefit is in the trillions.)

There, as here, the right side either didn't do enough to stop the slide that the left started in the Carter/trudeau years (as in the case of Reagan and Mulroney) or made things worse (as in Bush Jr.) Reagan and Mulroney did set the table for the good times though. You could say that the trend is the left buggers things up, the right cleans up most (but not all of) the mess and is hated for it so they get turfed out of office in time for the left to both take credit and start the destruction all over again. Except for Bush Jr who doubled down the spending idiocy.

As for the house and senate, both parties and all involved are wankers of the first order. A pox on both their houses.

If Reagan had funded the increase in military spending instead of borrowing to pay for it, he'd have had a perfect record. If Mulroney wouldn't have blinked on spending cuts in the face of liberal and NDP screeching, his record would have been ok (he still took the money in envelopes...)

Wow. This thread is making me sound far more bitter than I actually am. I'm pretty much resigned to the dim fate of the future. It just is. Time to adapt...

Jason I am not necessarily disagreeing with you but you have to remember that I too have been paying in and not getting anything back. Now I receive a pension. When I get CPP just about the entire amount is deducted from my pension. I am not sure what that percentage is but I expect it will be about 80%. In other words I paid into the plan with no foreseeable benefit. My pension contributions were 7% of income. It was not unfunded. the fact governments pee'd away that money is not on me. That is on the corpse of Trudeau and the still breathing Paul Martin. They are the ones that made CPP a general revenue ponzi scheme. There was the last I remember 45 billion of assets that were supposed to be there. For that I received things like HRC's and affirmative action. Not the good AA but the bad AA where people cost but provide no benefits. Now the CPP has a portion invested and in the bull decade it made quite a bit of money. Why did it take so long to do that? Because that money doesn't go into general revenue where it can be frittered away. As the market comes back the numbers will improve.

KevinB & Texas Canuck: We are talking generations not individuals. Yes, you can find examples of those who paid more on aggregate than they will get out, it is not true as a generation. Further, it doesn't matter how much you contributed during your life to the CPP, if the government spent every dime of it. Again, you may not have elected those governments, but the people under 18 (or unborn) at the time sure has heck had no say. As a whole, the generation spent way more than they saved, or that the recouped from increases in productivity.

Ken, you're an idiot. Reagan's debt was a direct result of his drastic increase in military spending with the aim of breaking the tenuous Soviet system. It worked, cold war over. Bush's debt was a direct result 9/11, the ensuing recession caused by it, and having to fund wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Considering everything the US has had to deal with through the opening of the 21st century, it's amazing the debt grew as little as it did. Obama? That guy's on crack or something.

Texas Canuck, A different bob and whoever else thinks like you do...

Just because you only paid what you were asked to, doesn't mean you're entitled to extra.

So here's what I suggest, lets have you receive the share you paid in (= diddly maybe). It's clear to me you don't care what happens to me in the future even though I'll pay double so I really don't think it's necessary for to care about the consequences to you.

If you're confused by this bought of selfishness there's a name for it...

It's called karma.

KevinB

Do you know that you used to get 25 year mortgages at 4%? (and if you got one before the inflation of the 70's you were lucky as hell with the locked in rate while the value of your home skyrocketed. A good portion of the economy came from borrowing on that wealth.) Using an average rate skews the real returns and doesn't properly weight each payment in any cash flow calculation.

You also know that CPP money was lent to the provinces as less-than-market rates of interest for several decades so that the provincial governments could deficit spend cheaper than they otherwise would?

As a whole generation (a point I keep repeating as the difference between the individual and the whole is meaningful) the CPP wasn't funded worth a damn and the money which did go in was spend on current spending on his own generation at the provincial level.

Because it was a "pay as you go" system, the money was not being put away as an RSP would be so your math is not relevant (and I have both excel and my trusty HP12C financial calculator from my CFA exams in front of me if it were so thanks, but I don't really need any lessons.)

If the plan was funded to the degree it needed to be to sustain the benefits promised, finance minister Paul Martin would not have doubled the contribution rates because he would not have had to. That was the biggest tax increase in CDN history all to pay benefits already promised but not paid for. Instead of at the vary least SHARING the shortfall between the old people close to or at retirement and the young, they let the old off the hook completely. Any present value calculations are moot if the money isn't there.

You could do all kinds of calculations on an individual basis but all that proves is that someone making above average money (which isn't hard) pays and everyone else doesn't. But in addition to the disparity in taxation paid WITHIN a generation, there is also now a disparity BETWEEN generations. And, as I also said repeatedly, CPP is just one example of many (and not even the worst.)

So again, the old should apologize to the children for the mess they leave behind.

KevinB, you've made one very big mistake. CPP is not a fully funded plan, so you can't calculate any future value.

"Currency Devaluation - the only way out. (If you can call it a 'way' out.
aka printing money - which gov'ments of the world are already doing.
Posted by: ron in kelowna at June 17, 2009 1:26 PM "

ron kelowna gets it right this time.

THIS is what leads to hyperinflation. economics is like the laws of gravity etc etc.

the U.S. WILL experience hyperinflation some time in this century; it is inevitable. they will do all manner of nastiness to avoid it like invading still more other soveriegn nations to steal their resources as a way of mmm, 'cutting costs'. and Canuckistan is NOT immune. hell WE are going to be in the centre of the bull's eye because of geography and where will all you cheer leading be then ? it doesn't matter which party is in power either on either side of the border.

'make them an offer they cannot refuse'

The CPP doesn't amount to much and I wouldn't miss it if it was gone. Call me naive but I think one should have an individual pension plan. Just my thoughts. That being said, what's going on in the US is chilling. Did someone tell Obama that he is frittering away HIS children's future?
Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at June 17, 2009 2:03 PM "

they're called mutual funds obywan.

the down side, even after their values recover as much as they are going to, at some point, because the funds are not in cold cash, the Cdn government WILL tax the bejeezuz out of any redemptions. and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

this is the folly of joining up and supporting any party anywhere on the pol. spectrum: 'they all do it'.

godot, please provide one example of the US invading a sovereign (check your spelling) nation and stealing their resources. I know that to date the US has spent massive amounts of dollars rebuilding Iraq, and I haven't heard anything about any oil they've received for free. I also know that the US spent boatloads of money rebuilding West Germany, South Korea, and Japan. To date, I haven't heard anything about the US stealing any of these countries' resources. So please enlighten me, because if they are, in fact, stealing other countries' resources, I'll be the first one to march down to the US embassy and protest.

We have a fascist at the helm of declining super power. One can only wonder what the future holds.

"So again, the old should apologize to the children for the mess they leave behind."

Not sure I can speak on behalf of the "old", but most people just spend their lives trying to raise their kids and get by. They're not in control of larger policy, anymore than you are or will be.
BTW, I'm so glad I didn't bust my butt supporting and raising a jason. Or a josh.

I'm only one example in an ocean of diverse experiences, but my family history shows:

Great-great grandfather - illiterate labourer. Died young, penniless.
Great grandfather - worked for the company from his fourteenth birthday to age 65, lived meagerly on a company pension to the age of 85, died virtually penniless.
Grandfather - worked for the company until he was 65, lived on a meager pension to the age of 80, leaving an estate of about $10,000.
Father - started university, could not afford to complete. Worked for the company and for himself, retiring at 55, but with sufficient investments that he lived quite comfortably until the age of 95.
Me (a Boomer) - Graduated from University, the first in the family's history to do so. Worked for the company until age 55, retired with sufficient means that barring economic catastrophe (oh-oh), can continue to live very comfortably, with toys and perks.
My Children- Both graduated from University, and have had no problem finding well paying, financially rewarding jobs.
My grandchildren - may have to pay for some people's extravagances, but at least they won't be paying for those of their parents/grandparents. So no apology is due to them.

There is a frequently repeated complaint that nobody will be as rich as the boomers. In the case of the guitar picking hippies that never learned to support themselves, this is true. Their parents owe them no apology, however. Anyone who spends their life making bad decisions deserves no apology.

Overall, I'll grant Jason is partially right. Some old people, but by no means all, left behind a mess. If their children think that challenges have been invented specifically for their generation, then those children have a problem. Kids who get their act together, get an education in a field with some sort of future, and keep their eyes open for ways to improve their lot, have nothing to worry about. Kids who think that flipping burgers is a life-sustaining career, and that the Union will get them the raises they need to pay for increases in their lifestyle, are in a heap of trouble. The real apology should come from the people who told the guitar pickers, burger flippers and assorted other skateboarders and traffic controllers that anything but their best was probably good enough. It isn't and it never was.

I'm a simple person so I can't comment on the ins and outs of our financial system or government policies.
Having said that, I am thoroughly pissed at those who blame us boomers for all ills, past and present.
As a 63 year-old male, I receive $503.00 per month
in CPP, after paying into it since it's inception until 2006. 40 years of solid employment.
Age 11- paper route
Age 16- 90 cents an hour packing groceries at A&P
Age 18- $1.25 an hour changing tires at BF Gooderich stores. 10 hour day-5 days a week.
Age 20- $3,100 per annum. First full-time job with a bank.
And on and on.
Never voted for Trudeau or any other Leftie government.
Didn't want to pay into CPP but was forced to. Had to pay Health Insurance premiums against my wishes because I was forced to.
People like Jason the rest of you bad attitudes better get a life. You are a product of our victim mentality.
I don't want one frigging cent from you. I kept what I earned, except for what the government interdicted from me and what I want returned in kind.

Jeezum Crow,
I don't want to end up beggared in my dotage, and only able to tell my kids, I voted against this every chance I got, as it would be cold comfort.

As for having a fascist in charge of a declining superpower, don't forget that we have conventional weapons systems that make nukes look tame by comparison. We also have a cult-of-personality supreme leader with no regard for either the constitution or the law except where it can be used for rhetorical purposes to advance his agenda.

Jason, you are absolutely wrong blaming the old for not fully funding CPP. As a Director of Payroll I saw the nationally huge sums over the years going into CPP though our earnings were initially much smaller than today's average salary CPP was still a significant deduction. I can remember as clear today as then when our VP in the 80's, as you noted, showed how almost every dollar put into CPP was loaned to the provinces and NEVER REPAID. Look at the billions now present in QPP because it was kept as a seperate invested fund. Financial people across Canada begged Ottawa to invest CPP in vehicles to generate income. Could you imagine the huge funds that would be there today if this had been done throughout all the big earning years gone by but no the feds wanted it as their personal piggy bank. Don't you dare blame us because the governments in Ottawa, primarily Liberal, kept CPP as general revenue despite Canadian demands to keep it as a trust fund.

When RSP came in we poured money into that but as we see today few take advantage of the maximum amount because we had no money left after the massive run up in taxes on income and everything else that governments of all types just pile on people. Throughout the years the feds changed the rules on RSPs so if you have a company pension you couldn't contribute to an RSP. Now when we have to cash an RSP we get killed on the deferred tax.

Martin did the same thing to EI moving 54 billion from a seperate fund to show he had balanced the budget.

Jason, do you think "old people" had any influence on politicians who play the game of smoke and mirrors and have the best gold-plated pension you have ever seen. If you want a place to vent your spleen on blame them for the debacle of CPP!

To the various detractors of my analysis:

It's not the poor contributor's fault that the government frittered away the money they contributed. My point was that Largs' contributions IF THEY HAD BEEN INVESTED would more than pay for the current level of benefits. Is he to blame that various levels of government used his money for less than optimal purposes?

Jason, my dad bought our first house in Don Mills in 1961. He got a 25 year mortgage at 6 3/4%, and praised god for it until it was paid off. ($117 month!) I never saw interest rates that low until about 10 years ago. When was the last time you could get a 25 year fixed in Canada for 4%? 1955?

And please - I noted in my last paragraph that getting all the rates and returns to a proper cash flow analysis was work I wasn't prepared to do. But I did look this up - from 2000 to 2009, the CPIB's portfolio went from 44 billion to 108 billion. Now, I'm just a poor MBA, not a CFA, but that looks pretty close to 10% a year compounded to me. And I have to believe even an idiot could have done better than that from 1990 to 2000. So even if they had done much worse from 1969 to 1989 (also unlikely, as the big bull market started in 1982), 10% compounded returns for almost 20 years can make up for a lot of sub-par performance early.

So, blaming the people who paid into the scheme because the government misused their funds is unfair. They were told it was going to be invested on their behalf, and they believed it. If you want to call the various levels of government responsible each or all of: lying, cheating, incompetent, or irresponsible, I'm right there with you.

And one final point - none of us get a choice. We have no say in how much we pay in, how it's invested, and how we wish to withdraw our benefits (other than starting earlier at much reduced rates). So how can you slag the contributor who had no say, and call him names? Again, if you're going to jump on anyone, it's got to be the government, not someone trying to live on $918/month.

No time to read all the comments or comment fully.

I agree with Jason for the most part. I have grave concerns for those that are and will be senior in the near future. You are the most easily identifiable group and your personal success is ripe for envy. Like Jason said, I believe Boomers(to generalize) have failed in almost every conservative measurable except for generating personal wealth. Your wealth will be the “left’s” grievance, and you failure to uphold conservative principles will be the grievance from the “right”.

Wyatt Rivers said "..most people just spend their lives trying to raise their kids and get by. They're not in control of larger policy, anymore than you are or will be."

That pretty well sums up my feelings on this. Some of the boomers did well and a lot didn't. I know both types. None of them got to make the rules. To blame the boomers for this mess is too much of a stretch. They helped vote in the idiots who caused this mess though.

I blame the school systems and the newspapers. Had they done their due diligence people like Trudeau would never have gotten into power.

Jason and a different Bob, the real fact is we are all being taken for a ride, the CPP is just a huge pyramid scheme and by the time Jason retires there will still be nothing there and his kids will be paying double, triple or quadruple the rates.

kevinb said "Again, if you're going to jump on anyone, it's got to be the government, not someone trying to live on $918/month."

Well put Kevin. I think a lot of people assume that all the boomers are rich. Maybe they just notice the one that has money and missed the other 3 that have nothing. But then these would be the same people that would say you were either stupid or lazy or you wouldn't be poor.

People play the hand they are dealt. I don't think a lot of younger people today realize that there weren't a lot of options back then. You got lucky or you didn't.

KevinB, for 30 years Canadian government has been living beyond it's means, piling up debts for future generations to worry about. But nobody cares enough to raise hell about it. That's why it continues. Fiscal responsibility is never a priority when it comes time for elections. I take the time to write my MP's and urge them to work harder at eliminating the massive debts we're dealing with. Canada wastes huge amounts of tax revenue just making interest payments on money that was spent a quarter of a century ago! Could you imagine if the situation were reversed, where instead of a huge debt, we had a huge surplus putting billions of dollars in interest payments into the government coffers? The voters of this country, and they are the older generations, need to realize they are directly responsible for the debt, because it happened on their watch. Year after year, government after government. They need to step up and say "enough"!

I look forward to the day when Jason reaches 55, which at that time will be the mandatory age for "final retirement". The Party will no doubt find a lovely euphemism for it. They'll book you into a nice room at the local "Retirement Hospice". Just overnight. In through the front door, out the back, no need to burden society with your unnecessary drain on the public purse. Make way for the next generation and all that.

soooooo I get censored for predicting hyperinflation later in the century?

or is it just another case of 'we don't like you' which I've been getting since primary school.

ok, time to retire that pseudonym, expunge the cookies, reset the modem and resume jabbing SDA regulars in the eye with my wit.

heh heh heh !!!

CPP like all other government run socialist programs are the liberano's fault!

If these scumbags had not started it all we wouldn't have the need to deal with it.

I have a great idea, give me the money back that has been stolen from my paycheck over the years and I will walk away less screwed by you.

godot said "..and resume jabbing SDA regulars in the eye with my wit."

I've seen no sign of this wit yet. If people have been telling you they don't like you since primary school it might not be society that is wrong here it just might be you.

godot,
About your wit, godot, we are still waiting for it.

It's shocking that "it's the government's fault" is actually being put out as a defense for the boomers. I don't know how to put this without sounding patronizing but You (collectively) voted for those governments. You (personally) might not have, but Jason, Pete et al. have been arguing the generation.

There are many things that You (collectively) are responsible for, but the argument is that You've taken much more than what you have given.

One answer to the question "what nation has the US invaded for it's natural resources?" is Honduras. There are about 15 others but you'll go bananas trying to figure it out. Also, what were they doing in the Philippines?

"Also, what were they doing in the Philippines?"

Saving them from the Japanese.

But the first part about voting for it (and let me point out for the upteenth time that I mean the generation) is dead on.

KevinB,

i won't bore you with the MBA jokes but:

"from 2000 to 2009, the CPIB's portfolio went from 44 billion to 108 billion. Now, I'm just a poor MBA, not a CFA, but that looks pretty close to 10% a year compounded to me."

One, there are 33 million Canadians (I take a wild stab) and I assume 1/3 are paying into the CPP. We'll round that down to 10mm. How much of this increase is contributions and how much is return cause if a mutual fund tried to tell you your x bucks a month contribution was included in the return you'd be calling the securities commission to complain.

Also, in a country with 33 million people, a top heavy demographic with the boomers set to retire, is 108 billion gonna last long? If 10 million people are ponying up, that's only $10,800 a piece. Given that the government allows only 20% to be invested in the market with the remainder of the funds in bonds (now at least paying market interest) 10% in actual return would seem to be on the high side. Especially after the market tanked.

Note too that bull market or no, the money wasn't in it until a few years ago (memory fails but no longer than a decade.) So, the market performance from the '80's isn't a factor.

Can you give dates of any attack on Honduras by USA?

are you serious Jon? Honduras? There's not even any oil in Honduras! Those evil Americans, stealing all of the Honduran's bananas for themselves! Nice try. As for the Philippines, study your history. US involvement in the Philippines can be directly attributed to wars with Spain and Japan.

Jon and other Monday morning quarterbacks who blame the boomers for our fiscal problems and criticize the statement "it was the governments fault". Governments are just like the pyramid of large companies, it is the few at the top that make the decision that impact the many. That is why one man like Trudeau and now Obama with the cooperation of those with the same mindset at the top can change our country overnight and put it into a financial hole it may never get out of. Or McGuinty putting Ontario into have-not status in just a couple of years.

Of course we have one vote each and many listened to the siren song of the Liberals, still do, that a vote for me will give you lots from the public treasury. This tax death of a thousand cuts came slowly in the 50's when one wage earner could buy a house, car and feed his family whereas today, even before the economic crisis caused primarily by liberal governments, both husband and wife must, must work to keep the family intact and it is still going broke as taxes both visable and hidden eat away at their earnings. Basically 50% of the family earnings are gone in taxes, one full wage earner.

These political leaders were entrusted to build and maintain the CPP trust and they failed.

A key shift in our society was the movement from private industry to public unions such that now the government employee makes 36% more in wages and benefits than her private counterpart if they still have a job. Governments are the largest employers now in the country.

When we boomers started our jobs and careers there were more jobs than people to fill them and we all worked hard. Now huge governments focus on those who don't or wont work and have armies of public employees catering to them.

All the tax money we generate can not allow Canada to continue down this road.

[quote]Note too that bull market or no, the money wasn't in it until a few years ago (memory fails but no longer than a decade.) So, the market performance from the '80's isn't a factor.[/quote]

The Market, since 1980, has "reset" accumulated wealth every decade. $10,000 invested in a very conservative no load Fund "Vanguard Wellington" in 1982 may be worth ~ $10,000 today

Do you see the problem?

It's shocking that "it's the government's fault" is actually being put out as a defense for the boomers. I don't know how to put this without sounding patronizing but You (collectively) voted for those governments. You (personally) might not have, but Jason, Pete et al. have been arguing the generation.
~Jon at June 17, 2009 9:19 PM

It wasn't Prime Minister Trudeau who gave Canada it's Ponzi scheme CPP.
It was Pearson.

*Socialist Policies enacted by the Greatest Generation(Not the Boomers) Under Lester Bowles Pearson:

-Canada Pension Plan
-Universal Health Care System
-Canadian Armed Forces Used for Peace Keeping
-New Flag
-Student Loans( which are rarely paid back)
-Bilingualism
-Auto Pact
-Status of Women(Royal Commission)

Pearson's favourite acolytes were:
Pierre Trudeau
Jean Chretien
Paul Martin Sr.

All of whom were cabinet Ministers in Pearson's governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Bowles_Pearson

Those of you who slag baby boomers are wrong about who made Canada a Socialist nation.
It was the "Greatest Generation" who made Pearson Prime Minister, us "Boomers" were too young to be voting in any significant numbers.

Not that I'm defending Trudeau, whose first term was voted in by the "Greatest generation" too, Trudeau being a member of the "Greatest Generation" himself.

On thing I forgot to add to PM Pearson's socialist accomplishments was that he created the current immigration system....no doubt so the new immigrants could run the new universal Health Care system and the CPP into the ground.
Pearson had a minority government which ran it's full term of five years with the help of the NDP under Tommy Douglas, it's first leader.

That is how the Pearson Liberals were able to implement such radical change in Canadian society.
Of course, none of it would have been possible without the votes of Canada's "Greatest Generation" who failed to fight for freedom and democracy in WWII, instead ending the war early without fighting the Communists over whom the "Greatest Generation" had a tremendous military advantage.

Practically every trouble we face today, from terrorism to continued radical social engineering to the problems in Iran and North Korea, stem from the failure of the "Greatest Generation" to deal with the Communist threat when they had such a huge war machine, land, air, and naval superiority, as well as a monopoly on the atom bomb, at their disposal.

Instead, they gave the Communists half of Europe, they demobilized, went home, and kicked the can down the road, allowing the Communists to further infiltrate western society, catch up in armaments, and leave a massive growing problem for future generations to face.

very good points Oz. I agree with you that plenty of this goes back before the boomers. But the boomers brought the "me me me" attitude to the forefront. Look at Vietnam, and the constant refrain of "why are we fighting their war". And the boomers brought far too many "only child" nutcases into the world. I swear, 90% of the dysfunctional idiots I know are only children. They think the world revolves around them.

Look at Vietnam, and the constant refrain of "why are we fighting their war" in toe-to-toe Attrition style falling into pits of feces dipped punji sticks and getting our legs blown off with anti-personnel mines when our parents, the "Greatest Generation" carpeted bombed the enemy into rubble and should have finished off the Communist threat when they had a clear advantage in arms 20 years earlier.

There, fixed it for you.

And the "Greatest Generation" had the me, me , me thing down to an art, don't kid yourself or they wouldn't have voted for Pearson.

Ronald Reagan on Vietnam October 10, 1965:
"It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas."

That was before the youth started protesting the war in any real numbers.

Oz

If you really want to split hairs, you could say that it all started when women got the vote… Per capita, women are statistically more likely to vote socialist.

/ducks under the desk - lol.

As for the generations, of the people over 55 now, only the people younger than about 65ish are boomers. The rest are the "greatest gen" and those between them.

The "greatest gen" came home and bred the boomers, the boomer bred x/y and didn't do any better. But, the one thing you miss is that the "greatest gen" wasn't in power when FDR fought Churchill's idea of finishing the Reds (or at least driving them out of eastern Europe.) For that matter, FDR was an idiot. All you need to know about the man is that he loved Stalin and hated Churchill.

Not continuing to drive the commies out of Europe was a decision made by people raised in the Victorian era.

Churchill even went to the Boer War (as a journalist if memory serves - which is only occasionally does.)

the liberals set up the cpp. the money went onto general revenue for years was loaned at no interest to provinces. the government and only the government are responsible for any problems relating to funding. i paid into the program from it's inception. i now draw cpp. as far my not paying enough i figure the 50 to 60% tax bite i paid for many years more than covers any guilt. so boys get to work and pay your way.

old white guy

What year did you start work? What was the tax rate? (hint: it wasn't 50-60% if you're old enough to collect CPP.)

If you stated: "I voted against the governments who did this so I did everything in my power to prevent the insanity," that would be a moral argument.

Just saying "it isn't my problem so too bad you're stuck with the bill" isn't. It's that attitude which doesn't even admit that there is anything wrong which perpetuates the problem.

And for the upteenth time, we aren't talking about the individual. On an individual basis, many people pulled their weight and many didn't. On a generational basis, your gen and the several bracketing you, didn't. I'm sure my gen (being raised by the boomers) wouldn’t' do any better if they were given the choice. I haven't said (nor will I) that my gen is in any way better because we're getting passed the bill. If my gen had the option of kicking the can down the road another gen or two, many people would vote to do so - probably a majority.

But, don't think that saying "tough titties" and passing the buck is good thing. You have grandkids? They're not gonna have fond memories of your lot whether it was you who contributed to it or attempted to resist it and "sorry about your luck chump" isn't going to make matters any better.

Jason, the anti-war movement started at the end of WWI.
That movement was organized by the ComIntern from Moscow and was the reason that only the Fascists and the Communists had huge war machines at the beginning of WWII while the western nations had to rearm in a hurry.

General George S. Patton jr., always a loose cannon, wanted to finished the job, among others, but he died in a mysterious road accident.

FDR/Truman's government was riddled with NKVD/KGB agents and their top advisers got their marching orders from Moscow.

As to the "greatest gen wasn't in power when FDR fought Churchill's idea of finishing the Reds", they were very interested in politics by the time the war ended and don't forget that they admired Hitler before they had to fight him, as well as many of them admiring Stalin's transformation of Soviet society which led many of them to fight on the Communist side in the Spanish Civil War in the "International Brigade".

Remember, they elected FRD to 3 terms but it was Truman that kiboshed the continued war effort, and then latter he fired General MacArthur when he wanted to win the Korean War. It was also Truman who "lost" China by pulling support from Chiang Kai-shek.

That said, all this bigotry against the Boomer generation, and I'm a Boomer even though I'll turn 50 in August and my wife is 52, is unfounded, especially in Canada where the Boomers didn't do much protesting compared to other nations.

Remember, us Boomers tried to make things right in the '80s by electing Mulroney, who we thought was a Conservative but turned out to be a Progressive.
Boomers in the U.S. tried to repair things with Reagan and Boomers in the UK elected Thatcher.

As soon as WWII ended, in England, the "Greatest Generation" quickly dumped Churchill and elected one Labour government after another until Thatcher came to power.

Molly coddling child rearing started with the "Greatest Generation" who made a fad of it.
Benjamin McLane Spock (May 2, 1903 – March 15, 1998) was an American pediatrician whose book Baby and Child Care, published in 1946, is one of the biggest best-sellers of all time.
Who bought that book and made it one of the biggest best-sellers of all time?
The "Greatest Generation", that's who.

Dr. Spock was an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War.

I smile as I read this cat fight. A couple of truisms for the throng.

1. Demography is not a "new" science.

2. Pension fund managers have been aware of the "boomer demographic problem" for decades.

3. Most of the basic decisions of government are not made up out of whole cloth by elected politicians, rather a limited set of policy options are promulgated from the Privy Council Office and presented to elected officials.

4. The inter-connectedness of the disparate policy initiatives from multiple federal departments only look independant because citizens are not privy to all the data that PCO types have at their disposal.

5. The erosion of private rights, rights we are born with under our system of law, has been enabled by a bureaucracy directed at the highest level by an institution (PCO)which seems intent on maintaining a nobless oblige plutocracy which continues to dispropotionately benefit the "old money" in Canada.

6. Radical change if/when it comes will be worse than what we have today.

7. Understanding how we became one of the most prosperous nations in the history of man is more likely to be acquired by looking to the past tried and true methods of finance/governance, rather than Wall St./Bay St. smoke and mirrors juggling of bogus assets.

8. We need to make stuff people wish to buy at prices they can afford if we wish to prosper.

9. Any who believe in "sustainable developement" need to check their assumptions about the moral character of those who will be "deciding" what is sustainable.

10. Almost all within the system today have hoop-jumped for so long with such great personal reward they are incapable of seeing the problems they have wrought, because it sure as hell is working well for them.

Oz,

You miss the point I was making (and I guess when I was making statements about cut-offs and age I wasn't clear enough on my intent.)

I was saying that it was the boomers, the greatest gen, the gen in between, and the gen before the greatest gen (who gave us the "new deal") which are all to blame.

I said over the age of roughly 55-60 as the cut-off. This wasn't a moral cut-off, it's the actuarial age whereby AS A WHOLE, the people over that age will AS A WHOLE pay less than they take out. People younger than that age AS A WHOLE will pay more than they take out.

In other words, there is a tipping point where the bill is due and those that fall below it will pay and those that are above it will be dead before the tab comes payable.

Between the boomers and the Greatest gen (and those in between,) they elected Trudeau who decimated the nation's finances. Even Pearson's programs would have been affordable without Trudeau.

In a very short time, the federal debt went from 25 billion (mostly left over from WWII) to somewhere between 250-300 billion. Not chump change back before the inflation of the late 70's/early 80's. This spending produced inflation which begot high interest rates which ballooned interest costs which begot more and rising deficits.

Everything since then has been a legacy of that. We no longer fund the upkeep of our infrastructure (notice the increase in pipe and sewer bursts and sinkholes across the nation,) we spend a huge portion of federal spending on interest (although with rates as low as they are it isn't as bad.) Etc.

Worst still is the moral hazard of big government polluting people's minds.

When all the new deal era stuff was thought up, it really was for the best of intentions. You had the depression gen who had their lives smashed by the depression and who were dirt poor until the day they died. But they were proud. Back then, you didn't take handouts from anyone and that included the government, unless the need was dire.

The programs then, were made universal and not need-based so that the people who truly needed help would take it.

Unfortunately, like all moral hazard, once you open the tap and make something universal, it becomes a right instead of charity and people see it their due.

old white guy illustrates that nicely.

Re: -Student Loans( which are rarely paid back)

I wouldn't call a 25% default rate "rarely paid back"

They're definitely operating loss.

K Stricker

To be fair, the student loan system was formerly a total fiasco. Defaulters were not punished, there was pitiful collections enforcement and the default was not registered with the credit bureaus.

All that changed in the early '90's. Defaults plummeted for all but fluff degree takers.

Warwick,

See Philippines history before ww2.

Also,
Honduras saw the insertion of American troops in 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924, and 1925.