Freedom 55 Ottawa-style!
Good Day Readers:
Couple quick points:
(1) Our favourite story. Several years ago the then Liberal government introduced a Bill in the House of Comments allowing MPs to begin collecting their pensions at age 55 rather than 60. So when was it introduced in Parliament? That's right during a sparsely attended evening session - you know, when the Parties cluster their few Members together for the cameras so it looks like there's a lot of them. As fate would have it, there happened to be a Globe and Mail reporter present otherwise it would have gone completely unnoticed
(2) If the government is serious it will also place on the chopping block the amazing array of perquisites your Member of Parliament and Senators enjoy. Someone has to pay!
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
________________________________________________________
John Ivison: Lavish MP pensions on chopping block
John Ivison
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Stephen Harper is prepared to include MP pensions in government's new austerity measures. (Blair Gable/Reuters/Files)
Members of Parliament are likely to see the generous terms of their gold-plated pensions significantly eroded as part of the Harper government’s deficit reduction budget this spring.
Stephen Harper had hinted in an interview last week that part of the strategy to reduce the deficit will include changes to programs that are likely to see ballooning costs as the number of retirees increases, such as public service pensions and Old Age Security. “We’ve got to make sure that we have, with an ageing population, a series of programs that are sustainable over the long-term,” he said.
As the National Post has written, the government is considering moves that could phase out lucrative defined benefit pension schemes for new hires in the public service and raise the age at which Canadians qualify for OAS from 65 to 67.
_____________________________________________________
Related
_____________________________________________________
However, the Prime Minister knows that he cannot ask public servants and Canadian seniors to suffer austerity measures while MPs benefit from one of the most lavish pension plans in the country. Possible reforms to the MPs’ scheme could include raising the minimum retirement age (currently 55) to lengthening the period of time it takes to qualify for a pension (currently just six years).
Senior sources said that a decision on public service pensions has not yet been made, largely because of legal and legislative barriers to unilateral changes. But the source confirmed the government could still move on MPs’ pensions, even if it holds off on reforms covering the bureaucracy. He said all three strands of pension policy are linked as part of the government’s plan to make sure there is sustainability and fairness in the system.
Ian Lee, a professor at Sprott Business School, said the government would be smart to address what he called “the profound unfairness of MPs’ pensions” before it moves on broader reforms.
“The government cannot ask ordinary Canadians to put their shoulder to the wheel and carry to the burden of austerity – if the elites are not sharing in the pain,” he said.
MPs’ pensions have long been a lightning rod for criticism. Preston Manning and his Reform Party MPs “opted out” of the government pension plan when they came to Ottawa in 1993, but opted back in when then-prime minister Jean Chrétien gave them the chance in 2000.
The formula that determines MPs’ pensions has been reduced since then but remains extremely prodigal.
The latest numbers show that taxpayers pay $5.50 for every $1 that MPs and senators contributed to their pension plan. Most private schemes call on the employer to contribute $1 for every $1 added by the member. The parliamentary pension scheme paid out $48.8-million in the 2009/2010 fiscal year to 503 former MPs and senators collecting pension benefits. The report said 117 of them received more than $70,000 a year, with the average for senators being $56,512 and for MPs $53,586.
Since then, 113 more MPs were defeated at the last election and will receive millions more in pensions and severance payments. There was an outcry last May when it emerged that defeated Bloc Québécois leader, Gilles Duceppe is in line to receive $140,000 a year from taxpayers, despite devoting his career to breaking up the country.
MPs are eligible for a pension after serving in the House for six years, and pensions are calculated on the best five earnings years. On a current salary of $157,000 a year, MPs qualify for an indexed lifetime pension of $27,000 when they reach 55. That means a six-year MP who reaches the age of 80 could receive a minimum of $675,000.
MP Pierre-Luc Dusseault can aim for Freedom 25. (Handout)
The absurd munificence of the scheme is apparent from just one example: Pierre-Luc Dusseault, who became Canada’s youngest ever MP when he was elected as a member of the NDP in Sherbrooke, will qualify for his pension before his 26th birthday, if he is re-elected.
As Sprott’s Mr. Lee put it: “Presently there are three classes of Canadians concerning pensions: First-class Canadians who receive MPs pensions; government-class Canadians, who get public service pensions, with retirement at 50 or 55; and cattle-class Canadians, who collect OAS at 65. Or, as Orwell said: ‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others’.”
• Email: jivison@nationalpost.com | Twitter:
_____________________________________________________
As Americans Get Poorer Members of Congress Get Richer
By Amy Bingham
@Amy_Bingham
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
The average American’s net worth has dropped 8 percent during the past six
years, while members of Congress got, on average, 15 percent richer, according
to a New York Times analysis of financial disclosure. The median net worth of
members of Congress is about $913,000, compared with about $100,000 for the
country at large, the Times’ analysis found.
This wealth disparity between lawmakers and the people they represent seems to be continually growing. Nearly half of Congress — 249 members — are millionaires, while only 5 percent of American households can make the same claim.
Even among the super rich, members of Congress fare better than other wealthy Americans. While the net worth of the richest 10 percent of Americans has remained stagnant since 2004, lawmakers’ net worth has seen double-digit growth, the Times reports.
Members of the House have fared especially well. From 1984 to 2009, the average net worth of the 435 House reps more than doubled, from $280,000 to $725,000, not including home equity, according to a Washington Post analysis of financial disclosures.
And while lawmakers in the “people’s house” grew significantly richer, the people they represent became slightly poorer, with the average wealth of an American household dropping from $20,600 to $20,500 over the same time period, the Post reports.
This growing disparity may be due, in part, to the rising cost of campaigning, which may deter less-affluent citizens from seeking public office.
To win a House seat, candidates spent an average of $1.4 million in 2010, four times as much as was spent in 1976, according to the Federal Election Commission. Winning a Senate seat is nearly 10 times as expensive, with the average successful Senate campaign shelling out nearly $10 million in 2010.
Couple quick points:
(1) Our favourite story. Several years ago the then Liberal government introduced a Bill in the House of Comments allowing MPs to begin collecting their pensions at age 55 rather than 60. So when was it introduced in Parliament? That's right during a sparsely attended evening session - you know, when the Parties cluster their few Members together for the cameras so it looks like there's a lot of them. As fate would have it, there happened to be a Globe and Mail reporter present otherwise it would have gone completely unnoticed
(2) If the government is serious it will also place on the chopping block the amazing array of perquisites your Member of Parliament and Senators enjoy. Someone has to pay!
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
________________________________________________________
John Ivison
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Members of Parliament are likely to see the generous terms of their gold-plated pensions significantly eroded as part of the Harper government’s deficit reduction budget this spring.
Stephen Harper had hinted in an interview last week that part of the strategy to reduce the deficit will include changes to programs that are likely to see ballooning costs as the number of retirees increases, such as public service pensions and Old Age Security. “We’ve got to make sure that we have, with an ageing population, a series of programs that are sustainable over the long-term,” he said.
As the National Post has written, the government is considering moves that could phase out lucrative defined benefit pension schemes for new hires in the public service and raise the age at which Canadians qualify for OAS from 65 to 67.
_____________________________________________________
Related
_____________________________________________________
However, the Prime Minister knows that he cannot ask public servants and Canadian seniors to suffer austerity measures while MPs benefit from one of the most lavish pension plans in the country. Possible reforms to the MPs’ scheme could include raising the minimum retirement age (currently 55) to lengthening the period of time it takes to qualify for a pension (currently just six years).
Senior sources said that a decision on public service pensions has not yet been made, largely because of legal and legislative barriers to unilateral changes. But the source confirmed the government could still move on MPs’ pensions, even if it holds off on reforms covering the bureaucracy. He said all three strands of pension policy are linked as part of the government’s plan to make sure there is sustainability and fairness in the system.
Ian Lee, a professor at Sprott Business School, said the government would be smart to address what he called “the profound unfairness of MPs’ pensions” before it moves on broader reforms.
“The government cannot ask ordinary Canadians to put their shoulder to the wheel and carry to the burden of austerity – if the elites are not sharing in the pain,” he said.
MPs’ pensions have long been a lightning rod for criticism. Preston Manning and his Reform Party MPs “opted out” of the government pension plan when they came to Ottawa in 1993, but opted back in when then-prime minister Jean Chrétien gave them the chance in 2000.
The formula that determines MPs’ pensions has been reduced since then but remains extremely prodigal.
The latest numbers show that taxpayers pay $5.50 for every $1 that MPs and senators contributed to their pension plan. Most private schemes call on the employer to contribute $1 for every $1 added by the member. The parliamentary pension scheme paid out $48.8-million in the 2009/2010 fiscal year to 503 former MPs and senators collecting pension benefits. The report said 117 of them received more than $70,000 a year, with the average for senators being $56,512 and for MPs $53,586.
Since then, 113 more MPs were defeated at the last election and will receive millions more in pensions and severance payments. There was an outcry last May when it emerged that defeated Bloc Québécois leader, Gilles Duceppe is in line to receive $140,000 a year from taxpayers, despite devoting his career to breaking up the country.
MPs are eligible for a pension after serving in the House for six years, and pensions are calculated on the best five earnings years. On a current salary of $157,000 a year, MPs qualify for an indexed lifetime pension of $27,000 when they reach 55. That means a six-year MP who reaches the age of 80 could receive a minimum of $675,000.
The absurd munificence of the scheme is apparent from just one example: Pierre-Luc Dusseault, who became Canada’s youngest ever MP when he was elected as a member of the NDP in Sherbrooke, will qualify for his pension before his 26th birthday, if he is re-elected.
As Sprott’s Mr. Lee put it: “Presently there are three classes of Canadians concerning pensions: First-class Canadians who receive MPs pensions; government-class Canadians, who get public service pensions, with retirement at 50 or 55; and cattle-class Canadians, who collect OAS at 65. Or, as Orwell said: ‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others’.”
_____________________________________________________
By Amy Bingham
@Amy_Bingham
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
While millions of Americans saw their incomes decrease, their job
opportunities dissipate and their home values drop as the economy dipped, the
535 men and women they elected to represent them in the U.S. Congress were not
only shielded from the economic downturn but gained during it.
only shielded from the economic downturn but gained during it.
This wealth disparity between lawmakers and the people they represent seems to be continually growing. Nearly half of Congress — 249 members — are millionaires, while only 5 percent of American households can make the same claim.
Even among the super rich, members of Congress fare better than other wealthy Americans. While the net worth of the richest 10 percent of Americans has remained stagnant since 2004, lawmakers’ net worth has seen double-digit growth, the Times reports.
Members of the House have fared especially well. From 1984 to 2009, the average net worth of the 435 House reps more than doubled, from $280,000 to $725,000, not including home equity, according to a Washington Post analysis of financial disclosures.
And while lawmakers in the “people’s house” grew significantly richer, the people they represent became slightly poorer, with the average wealth of an American household dropping from $20,600 to $20,500 over the same time period, the Post reports.
This growing disparity may be due, in part, to the rising cost of campaigning, which may deter less-affluent citizens from seeking public office.
To win a House seat, candidates spent an average of $1.4 million in 2010, four times as much as was spent in 1976, according to the Federal Election Commission. Winning a Senate seat is nearly 10 times as expensive, with the average successful Senate campaign shelling out nearly $10 million in 2010.
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 5:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home