Today’s (CPP) special
If, even today, the self-employed and others without a company pension cannot afford to voluntarily contribute to an RRSP for their old age, where will the money come from to voluntarily contribute to the pooled registered pension plans that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty proposes (Many Pools to Play In – editorial, Dec. 20)?
In the looming postretirement scenario that most self-employed persons and others without pensions confront, it seems this pooled plan would ensure that cat food remains the daily special.
L.W. Naylor, Stratford, Ont.
.........
Your “many pools” are all major for-profit corporations, namely banks and insurance companies. Why would Canadians want their pension premiums contributing further to the profits of your “pool” owners, given the mess that the finance industry in general has created across the Western world?
Ashley Dermer, Vancouver
.........
The pooled plans Jim Flaherty has proposed would be like group RRSPs but sponsored by a financial institution, as opposed to an employer. They will charge relatively high management fees because there will be a lot of pooled plans out there, with different investment options, so economies of scale won’t be reached. Unlike the CPP, there is no mandatory employer contribution in Mr. Flaherty’s plans; no defined benefit based on career average earnings; no inflation protection; and no assurance of full portability. Significantly, enrolment of employees may be not be universal. There will almost certainly be an opt-out provision at the discretion of a province. This is, at best, a poor alternative to CPP expansion. Opposition from the big banks and financial institutions has temporarily trumped advocacy for an expanded CPP. Still, at least six provinces favour CPP expansion. The issue is not going to go away.
Ken Georgetti, president, Canadian Labour Congress
.........
Until he backtracked on CPP reform, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s approach to CPP overhaul was much appreciated by people such as myself – people who work from paycheque to paycheque to meet the basics, let alone saving for retirement.
May I remind Mr. Flaherty, as well as the rest of us, that it is taxpayers who fund MPs’ pension plans, the very same people who have the gall to tell us to fund our own pension plans.
Randy Walsh, Toronto
.........
What? You, too?
When I read about Will Ferguson’s Christmas memory of Santa’s sooty kiss on his forehead (The Monday Q&A – Dec. 20), I felt as if I had found a lost family member. As children, the first thing my sister, brother and I did on Christmas morning was run to the mirror and pull back our bangs to make sure Santa had indeed visited and remembered to kiss us goodnight before continuing his gift-giving journey. You’re telling me now that we weren’t the only ones?
Joanne Mackay-Bennett, Toronto
.........
Nash equilibrium
Barrie McKenna (Who’s Carney Really Talking To? Heads Up Ottawa – Dec. 20) argues that “What the banks really want is for the government to sanction their mortgage-tightening cartel” and implies banks will not take action to address concerns about indebtedness to “keep their market shares and nice profits.” In fact, the situation is a perfect example of a Nash equilibrium, where incentives combine in such a way that the rational decisions and actions of every player lead to a suboptimal result. That is precisely the type of concern economic regulation is designed to address. Anyone who believes such situations can be resolved without government intervention is bound to be proven wrong.
Anne Fortier, Ottawa
.........
Head ’em off
Re Queen Could Disappear From U.K. Stamps If Royal Mail Is Sold (Dec. 20): Everyone seems to always be after the Queen’s head. She is not amused.
Douglas Cornish, Ottawa
.........
Held liable
