"Ç%" <Ç%@can.ca>
2012-01-27 22:27:37 UTC
There is no way that the Harper government will survive the next federal election if he tries
to make older people work even longer to reach their Old Age Pensions. Two governments played
with the idea of pension 'adjustments' before, and the outcry made them back off. In a way, I
hope Harper & Co do go ahead with this plan . . . . nothing would get rid of them more
quickly, and then the Opposition parties could run on a platform of UN-doing his legislation.
I guarantee Harper & Co would be gone forever.
Letters from Canadians to the media:
----------------------------------------
January 27, 2012 5:16 PM
Letters: About those MP pensions
Re: Harper vows to reform pensions (Gazette, Jan. 27).
So Stephen Harper seems to be planning to shortchange millions of Canadians who contributed to
their government-guaranteed pension plans from the age of 18 to the promised retirement age
of 65, a total of almost 50 years of ponying up hard-earned cash. We need to remind him that
the money is ours, not the governments. Had the funds been invested for the past 50 years, as
promised, and assuming the S&P 500 average return for the past 50 years of 11.7 per cent, there
would be far more than enough to return to Canadians the pensions they paid for. There would in
fact be a huge surplus.
Instead, successive governments have swallowed, not to say stolen, the money. Now, in a cynical
shell game, Harper is blaming the retirees who were the victims of government larceny. If
Harper truly had any intention of righting the wrongs, he would have started with two immediate
actions: first, stop funding the gold-plated pension plans that grant MPs $40,000 a year for
life after only six years of service; second, stop stealing our contributions. Put the current
contributions of Canadians, starting tomorrow, into investment funds, not the governments
General Fund pork barrel.
Eldon Walsh, Pointe Claire
___________________________________
While our prime minister is hinting at extending the old-age-pension eligibility from 65 to 67,
he should also think of setting a good example by reforming those lucrative pensions that
retired MPs receive $40,000 at age 55, guaranteed, after only six years of service. After 15
years in Parliament, the pension is a base of $75,000, going up to the $150,000 a year that
Gilles Duceppe receives. Theres gold in them thar Parliament Hills, but little for us miners.
Patrick Rosati, Mount Royal
__________________________________
It seems Stephen Harper has found a solution for the threat to social programs and services:
raising eligibility for Old Age Security from 65 to 67.
The life expectancy for most people is not much more than 67, so seeing that most people might
be dead at this point, his strategy might well work.
But I do not see why he doesnt look at the nice pension he and his MP friends get after a
six-year term and do some serious slashing there.
Albert Coccia, Greenfield Park
_________________________________
Before Stephen Harper raises the retirement age to 67, which primarily extends the working life
of middle- and low-income Canadians, he should take a hard look at major changes to the overly
generous pensions government officials receive. These pensions are heavily subsidized by the
very people he is now saying have to continue working before they can start to collect their
pensions, which are meagre when compared his those of government officials.
The $40,000 pension after six years of work is disgusting. No one in the private sector has any
hope of retiring at $40,000 per year for life, starting at 55, after working for six years in
one job.
Harper needs to greatly reduce the public contribution and increase the age to start
collecting. Only then should he start discussing raising the retirement age of the rest of us
to 67.
Lorraine Hodgson, Montreal
*******************************************************
"We CAN look after each other better than we do today.
We CAN have a fiscally responsible government.
We CAN have a strong economy; greater equality; a clean environment.
We CAN be a force for peace in the world." - Jack Layton
to make older people work even longer to reach their Old Age Pensions. Two governments played
with the idea of pension 'adjustments' before, and the outcry made them back off. In a way, I
hope Harper & Co do go ahead with this plan . . . . nothing would get rid of them more
quickly, and then the Opposition parties could run on a platform of UN-doing his legislation.
I guarantee Harper & Co would be gone forever.
Letters from Canadians to the media:
----------------------------------------
January 27, 2012 5:16 PM
Letters: About those MP pensions
Re: Harper vows to reform pensions (Gazette, Jan. 27).
So Stephen Harper seems to be planning to shortchange millions of Canadians who contributed to
their government-guaranteed pension plans from the age of 18 to the promised retirement age
of 65, a total of almost 50 years of ponying up hard-earned cash. We need to remind him that
the money is ours, not the governments. Had the funds been invested for the past 50 years, as
promised, and assuming the S&P 500 average return for the past 50 years of 11.7 per cent, there
would be far more than enough to return to Canadians the pensions they paid for. There would in
fact be a huge surplus.
Instead, successive governments have swallowed, not to say stolen, the money. Now, in a cynical
shell game, Harper is blaming the retirees who were the victims of government larceny. If
Harper truly had any intention of righting the wrongs, he would have started with two immediate
actions: first, stop funding the gold-plated pension plans that grant MPs $40,000 a year for
life after only six years of service; second, stop stealing our contributions. Put the current
contributions of Canadians, starting tomorrow, into investment funds, not the governments
General Fund pork barrel.
Eldon Walsh, Pointe Claire
___________________________________
While our prime minister is hinting at extending the old-age-pension eligibility from 65 to 67,
he should also think of setting a good example by reforming those lucrative pensions that
retired MPs receive $40,000 at age 55, guaranteed, after only six years of service. After 15
years in Parliament, the pension is a base of $75,000, going up to the $150,000 a year that
Gilles Duceppe receives. Theres gold in them thar Parliament Hills, but little for us miners.
Patrick Rosati, Mount Royal
__________________________________
It seems Stephen Harper has found a solution for the threat to social programs and services:
raising eligibility for Old Age Security from 65 to 67.
The life expectancy for most people is not much more than 67, so seeing that most people might
be dead at this point, his strategy might well work.
But I do not see why he doesnt look at the nice pension he and his MP friends get after a
six-year term and do some serious slashing there.
Albert Coccia, Greenfield Park
_________________________________
Before Stephen Harper raises the retirement age to 67, which primarily extends the working life
of middle- and low-income Canadians, he should take a hard look at major changes to the overly
generous pensions government officials receive. These pensions are heavily subsidized by the
very people he is now saying have to continue working before they can start to collect their
pensions, which are meagre when compared his those of government officials.
The $40,000 pension after six years of work is disgusting. No one in the private sector has any
hope of retiring at $40,000 per year for life, starting at 55, after working for six years in
one job.
Harper needs to greatly reduce the public contribution and increase the age to start
collecting. Only then should he start discussing raising the retirement age of the rest of us
to 67.
Lorraine Hodgson, Montreal
*******************************************************
"We CAN look after each other better than we do today.
We CAN have a fiscally responsible government.
We CAN have a strong economy; greater equality; a clean environment.
We CAN be a force for peace in the world." - Jack Layton