1/50th is a very generous accrual rate.
But 1/33rd accrual rate is ludicrous.
1 Like
I agree and the plan was even richer for MPs, especially short service ones, some years ago.
I think in some cases it’s 3% for each year of service.
Maybe RCMP and military?
Can they retire after 30 years?
Read MS’s screenshot.
That’s for politicians. I’m on the federal employee pension. It’s 2%/yr
Oh ok. Well in terms of calculating Poilievre’s pension that would be what matters.
But if politicians get more generous pensions than other federal employees that’s a difference between the U.S. & Canada it seems.
It’s worth noting that when going down that rabbit hole yesterday, I did also come across a comment that the contribution rate for MPs into the pension plan is also pretty high…high enough that any MP has a definite interest in trying to make it to the six years’ of service mark.
1 Like
One thing that has not been covered in this discussion is survivor benefits (spouse and dependents)
It is very common for MPs to have final salary schemes with a high % of the pension available to the spouse if the MP dies (in the UK this is 62.5%) and also the dependents if the spouse does and they are under a certain age.
These are obviously very generous terms which further increase the cost to the taxpayer.
Sure, the spouse piece is a pretty common feature of U.S. pensions too, both public and private.
In the U.S. the starting benefit would be lower for married pensioners unless they elect not NOT have the pension continue to their spouse (which I think requires the spouse’s consent).
Less common for it to continue to kids. Maybe the public ones that replace Social Security (which pays a Survivor benefit to kids) but not the federal ones and I don’t think most private ones either although I invite a pension actuary to correct me if I’m wrong about that.
Have been out of country and didn’t realize that our PM had been on Colbert’s show recently. Did anyone here watch it? The opinion piece below gushes a bit so I imagine most folks were less impressed.
I saw it. He was fine. Comes across as a very earnest guy who wants to effect positive change in the world. He initially avoided politics because he saw what his father went through as PM, but eventually moved from teaching into politics because he saw the opportunity to do more good. Bummer that he is probably going to get tossed in the next election because we need more leaders like him imo.
Justin was popular for a while but is now past his “best by date” in political terms. His party (the Liberals) will be demolished in the next federal election as a result but there are some good potential successors in the wings that will emerge at the subsequent leadership convention. I think the Liberals are very close to “a Natural Governing Party” for Canada so the populace will only endure one term of a Poilievre-led Conservative Party before returning the Liberals to power.
Hope this is the case
One of the unfortunate pitfalls of “Democracy”.
We get rid of leaders based on the logic of “their turn is up” which generally leads to unstable political environments.
I have zero doubt Poilievre will be cranking up the culture wars in Canada when he wins.
I don’t know whether Colbert’s videos on YouTube are geography-limited, but…
1 Like
I’m not sure. It’s possible that the liberal party will just die and another centrist party will emerge that can beat the conservatives. At the provincial level, liberal party is on life support.
Definitely wouldnt happen in Canada…
We are denying you care because your issue doesnt have a CPT code.
1 Like
Thanks for sharing: I enjoyed these! I should mention to the Americans that English is not Justin’s first language. Would not guess it, eh?
Justin got a better reception from Colbert’s audience than he would currently get anywhere in Canada. I agreed with his comment on the US “melting pot” versus the Canadian “mosac”: he wisely didn’t mention that his dad largely created that mosaic approach.
He has a different personality than his father. Justin is so upbeat whereas Pierre was an intimidating intellectual who could be scathing or brilliantly humorous as warranted.