Reducing CPP equals Old Age Suicide?
Stardate 5952.70
The Tories are suggesting a tax break in the form of reducing the CPP contribution employees pay on their pay cheques so that their take-home pay is higher. Okay, tax breaks always sound great, but let's think about this for a while. Currently, employees pay 4.95% into the CPP fund, so that when we get old, there is at least something there for us, whether it's enough or not is beside the point. This cut is of an undetermined amount, but let's just throw out a 1% cut, since this is a number the Tories seem to like. On a cheque for $1000, you could save an amazing $10 a cheque. Big break in the take-home pay huh? But what happens in the future?
In the US, Social Security is in serious trouble. In other words, by the time someone my age retires, there may be NO money left. Is this what we want to happen in Canada? Our plan works, and works fairly well in my opinion. However, to increase our take-home pay by pocket-change every cheque (say 2 drinks in the bar), we could be risking the future for all of us when we retire. In a world where only fools don't look to the future, investing in RRSPs, stocks and savings is key. Why then, would our government propose to hinder this?
This is another example of H-Dawg and the Tory platform of "fending for yourself" and live in the present, without fear of the future.
I am not an economist, nor a politician. The workings of this are likely too complex for your average person to "get", but it will involve moving money from surpluses, and covering costs with this and that... in the long run, there will be less money, guaranteed. And that is the bottom line. Blevkog has some insight into the inner workings of this...
The Tories are suggesting a tax break in the form of reducing the CPP contribution employees pay on their pay cheques so that their take-home pay is higher. Okay, tax breaks always sound great, but let's think about this for a while. Currently, employees pay 4.95% into the CPP fund, so that when we get old, there is at least something there for us, whether it's enough or not is beside the point. This cut is of an undetermined amount, but let's just throw out a 1% cut, since this is a number the Tories seem to like. On a cheque for $1000, you could save an amazing $10 a cheque. Big break in the take-home pay huh? But what happens in the future?
In the US, Social Security is in serious trouble. In other words, by the time someone my age retires, there may be NO money left. Is this what we want to happen in Canada? Our plan works, and works fairly well in my opinion. However, to increase our take-home pay by pocket-change every cheque (say 2 drinks in the bar), we could be risking the future for all of us when we retire. In a world where only fools don't look to the future, investing in RRSPs, stocks and savings is key. Why then, would our government propose to hinder this?
This is another example of H-Dawg and the Tory platform of "fending for yourself" and live in the present, without fear of the future.
I am not an economist, nor a politician. The workings of this are likely too complex for your average person to "get", but it will involve moving money from surpluses, and covering costs with this and that... in the long run, there will be less money, guaranteed. And that is the bottom line. Blevkog has some insight into the inner workings of this...
posted by Zaphod at 7:54 AM
<< Home