Like everyone else, I get a lot of scam emails. I found this one particularly entertaining: has anyone else received it?
I have never had a US social security number so they are not very discriminating in their mailings.
1 Like
Had no idea what a “1986 Texas Supreme Court Coe proceeding” was.
Per Google it appears to be entirely made up. Lazy scammers!
I like how they made every effort to get in touch with you… like after using “every avenue”, emailing your email address.
4 Likes
I get called multiple times a week about my SIN being suspended because of debts.
1 Like
Convenience stores in Ontario can now sell beer and wine. 
And they also have those mixed cooler and soda drinks! The Circle K by my place even has PBR!!
1 Like
Canada and the US have cooperated historically on sharing their water resources but Trump may have different views. I can’t see British Columbia, Oregon and Washington willingly allowing the Columbia River to be diverted to California. Nothing could create Cascadia faster than such an attempt.
Particularly where I think they just finished negotiating a new Columbia River Treaty.
1 Like
We know how Trump is with treaties, though.
1 Like
I don’t know if Federal politicians’ pensions are an issue in the US but they have been one in Canada for a long time. I remember cranking out numbers 50 years ago for a critique of them.
I see actuaries are still computing their value in a current controversy between party leaders.
$230k/year seems really high even if he spent 30Y as MP
I would imagine you cannot get more than 100% final salary? (or can you?)
Found this on a Canadian government web page:
As Leader of the Opposition, Poilievre’s salary is currently C$299.9k. If he were PM, his annual salary would increase to C$406.2k. He’s been an MP since 2004.
$230k still feels a little large, going just off that table. (At 20 years’ service, he’d be at 60% of the highest 5-years…so maybe 150-165ish, depending on the salary increase schedule and what he was making before he was Leader of the Opposition…do shadow ministers get a bump in their salaries?) But maybe there’s other stuff being rolled in to bring the value up?
I think they used to be.
As of a certain date just about all federal employees (exceptions for postal service and military and maybe a few others) are on the same pension plan as well as Social Security.
The benefit formula is 1% of your average pay (highest 3 years) for every year of service if your years of service is under 20 and 1.1% if it’s over 20.
Has to be a consecutive 36 months for the pay. I don’t think there’s a cap, but I mean you’d need 90 years of service to get to 100% pay.
Congress is part of FERS as well. They were on their own plan in earlier times that was more generous but they also paid more into it.
$230k is c70% of $300k so he is pretty close to the 75% maximum accrual that he would have been able to qualify for.
Looks like its the pre-2016 benefits (gold plated max average salary with no cap) that bump up his base accruals (with some likely extra credits), as they do seem to be more generous vs post-2016 benefits (5-year max salary average but with some caps).
I do have to say though, that is a stupidly generous pension scheme that the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook for.
1 Like
He was elected to Parliament in 2004. 20-21 years’ service × 3% = 60-63%.
(But I’m not a pension actuary. Maybe there’s some other weird math at work.)
Is it only time in Parliament that counts?
U.S. is different obviously, but here most federal service counts. If you were a paid staffer to a Congress critter before being elected to Congress yourself or you worked for some federal agency or anything like that then your years of service as a staffer / agency employee count exactly the same as your years of service as a Congress critter.
If Wikipedia can be believed (obviously always a concern), prior to being elected to Parliament, he had not been employed in government.
I don’t know whether private sector employment would count for the calculation. I’d think not, but Canada can be weird.
2 Likes
Yeah, looking at it that does seem high.
60% of 299,900 is $179,940, and his 20th anniversary is coming up. (20 x 3% = 60%)
I wonder if they’re projecting future years of service. If he gets to 25 years of service and the pay goes up a bit in the next 5 years then 230,000 seems quite possible. 230,000 is 75% of 306,666.67 which doesn’t seem far-fetched for a guy currently making 299,900.
1 Like
Remember also that it’s a highest 5-consecutive-year average salary basis.
Projecting forward seems like a plausible explanation, but if they were doing that, wouldn’t they also be factoring in the near-certainty that he’s going to be PM after the election?
1 Like
The insurance company I worked for 50 years ago was helping a taxpayers’ group make the case for dramatically cutting back these ridiculously rich pensions. We were not successful, obviously.
1 Like
This pension is purely based on service as an elected Member of Parliament: it is a special plan only for politicians. Other service, such as being a civil servant, is under a different plan with smaller benefits.
1 Like
Federal employees in Canada get 2% a year to a max of 35 years and are paid based on the average of their best 5 years. Though it’s actually not quite 2% as part of it comes from CPP which is a separate pension plan and I think CPP only covers you for income up to around $60k currently.
In 2012(?), the system split into group 1 and group 2, with group 2 being hired sometime around or after 2012. Group 1 employees I believe have a lower contribution rate than group 2 employees and can retire at ages 55-60 depending on various things. Group 2 are stuck at work til 65, though I think a reduced pension might be allowed at 60.