tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5465015914589377788.post4498132119096598068..comments2024-03-20T09:32:16.592-04:00Comments on Michael James on Money: The Assault on Public Service Pensions BeginsMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10362529610470788243noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5465015914589377788.post-17493768581734311402010-01-27T08:15:13.243-05:002010-01-27T08:15:13.243-05:00Ghostryder: I think you're talking about the 1...Ghostryder: I think you're talking about the 1999 grab of the pension "surplus". I doubt that there ever was a surplus in any real sense. But the money is long gone now.<br /><br />I should emphasize that I'm not taking sides on this issue. Whether government employees are due their full promised pensions or not, the costs of providing these pensions is not properly accounted for now and will cause major stress to government finances for many years. In my opinion, this has made it inevitable that the government will try to water down pension benefits at some point whether it is the right thing to do or not.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10362529610470788243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5465015914589377788.post-53026790852944929622010-01-27T00:31:54.789-05:002010-01-27T00:31:54.789-05:00Someone refresh my memory. Didn't the federal...Someone refresh my memory. Didn't the federal pension plan have a big multi-billion dollar surplus in it just a few years ago?<br /><br />Didn't the gov't take that surplus? Or rather, they were "forced" to because pensions cannot carry more than a certain level of surplus.<br /><br />Would this supposed shortfall in funding even exist if the pension had been allowed to keep the surplus it had?<br /><br />I don't recall CD Howe objecting when this surplus was used to pay debt. In fact I think they supported it. So CD Howe supports taking the surplus out of the pension plan and then whines that it is underfunded. A little self-serving isn't it?Ghostrydernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5465015914589377788.post-26711531078059111022010-01-20T09:43:21.867-05:002010-01-20T09:43:21.867-05:00So does this make me Typhoid Mary because I leave ...So does this make me Typhoid Mary because I leave Nortel which had pension issues and join the public service and now <b>they</b> are having Pension Issues.<br /><br />Hmmm....Big Cajun Pariahhttp://www.canajunfinances.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5465015914589377788.post-41034908964749147272010-01-20T08:16:13.338-05:002010-01-20T08:16:13.338-05:00Blitzer68: The C.D. Howe paper discussed this 199...Blitzer68: The C.D. Howe paper discussed this 1999 change, but it seems that while it may have helped, the problem is still large. It will be interesting to see what happens.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10362529610470788243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5465015914589377788.post-5091641430630310802010-01-20T07:17:51.277-05:002010-01-20T07:17:51.277-05:00Thanks for the reference to the C.D. Howe paper. Q...Thanks for the reference to the C.D. Howe paper. Quite interesting. Yes there is currently a big shortfall in the funding of the public service pension plan that tax payers are currently on the hook for.<br /><br />One way of dealing with future public service pension plan deficits is to shift some of the responsibility for addressing possible future deficits onto the employees. This is happening under a new scheme which started in 1999 with the Public Sector Pension Investment Board<br />Act (PSPIBA). Under this scheme, employer and employee contributions are actually invested in a pension fund managed by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board. As the decades roll on, any shortfalls in this pension fund will have to be dealt with by some negotiation between the employees (public servants) and employer (federal gov't) whereby the employee will have an obligation to make up a portion of the shortfall. This could be dealt with through lowered benefits or higher future contributions.<br /><br />Yes the federal gov't and thus taxpayers would still be on the hook, but I think it is a fairer arrangement than the scheme before 1999 where the employee didn't seem to have any obligation to make up any shortfall (as I understand it).Jim Turnbullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16141660549510415017noreply@blogger.com