|
|
On August 30 2012 10:34 xDaunt wrote:
Christ. Now I remember why Pawlenty didn't get anywhere during the primary. The guy is better suited as an NPR anchor than a politician.
LOL.
Anyway, I found a tidy little post explaining the differences between the Canadian Pension Plan and Old Age Security, and US Social Security.
In summary -- Jesus Christ the US Government is going to owe a shit-ton of money when the boomers hit retirement. Good lord. What the fuck are you guys doing down there!
Canada has two government sponsored programs for retirement: OAS and CPP.
OAS stands for Old Age Security. OAS is non-contributory. You get OAS just for being a senior citizen. The primary qualifying factors are age and number of years lived in Canada.
Basic OAS benefit is about $500 a month (the values of Canadian dollars and US dollars are about equal right now). Low income seniors receive an additional supplement. OAS starts phasing out through repayment if a retiree’s income is above $66k. It completely disappears if a retiree’s income is above $110k. The low base benefit amount, the low-income supplement, and the clawback mechanism make OAS a means-tested basic safety net.
CPP stands for Canada Pension Plan. Citizens in Quebec have a similar program called QPP – Quebec Pension Plan. Like Social Security, CPP provides disability and survivor benefits in addition to retirement benefits. I only look at the retirement benefits in this post.
The current CPP tax rate is set at 9.9% up to $42,100, equally shared between the employee and the employer, just like Social Security. By comparison, Social Security tax rate is 12.4% up to $106,800. The maximum tax for Social Security is about three times the maximum tax for CPP.
Because CPP’s tax rate and wage cap are lower, the benefits are also lower. The maximum CPP benefit at age 65 is $960 a month. The maximum Social Security benefit is $2,366 at age 66, before any spousal or child benefits.
CPP also has a trust fund, but CPP’s trust fund is real. An independent CPP Investment Board invests the trust fund in actual marketable securities: stocks, bonds, real estate. Social Security trust fund loans out 100% of its assets to the U.S. government, which spent it on the general budget. When Social Security needs the money to pay benefits, the U.S. government must tax its citizens or borrow from someone else to repay the Social Security trust fund.
When it comes to benefits to a current or former spouse or life partner, CPP is completely agnostic. When a couple divorce or separate, their CPP credits built up when they were together can be split between the two. A CPP recipient can also choose to share a portion of his/her CPP benefits with a spouse or partner. In either case, the total benefits don’t increase. There won’t be a case where one person contributes and current and former spouses plus several children all receive benefits without any reduction to the contributor’s benefits. The splitting and sharing provisions in CPP address the uneven income and marriage/divorce situations very elegantly.
I see Canada’s OAS and CPP programs have a better setup than Social Security in the U.S. They are more of a safety net, less of a retirement program retirees can live on 100%. The CPP trust fund is real, and will grow. Family benefits aren’t free. These characteristics make Canada’s OAS and CPP programs more sustainable than Social Security.
So there you have it. Canadians get less monthly once they retire, however, they pay much less out of their income. Also there are RSP's (Retirement Savings Plan) which all Canadians are encouraged to purchase, which is deducted off their taxable income (you get taxed later once you draw money from it).
So the CCP is not so much of retirement programs as much as it a program that keeps old people from dying like dogs. $1460 a month plus free health care is not bad. Would be interesting to compare Medicare to Canada's universal health care.
|
On August 30 2012 08:53 Leporello wrote:
Oh, and he invoked James Madison, saying that if Madison were here, he would surely agree with him about Obamacare being unconstitutional. Because we all know Madison's exact feelings on health-insurance and mandating insurance. That stuff was very prevalent in the 18th century.
Oh it's very easy to tell if you actually know anything about the man and his beliefs. For example you can go to about 110:00 here.
Unless of course you are simply engaging in the high-school level philosophizing that hey maybe he would have listened to Rage Against the Machine and like totally changed his mind. Or were you just going off with two made-up facts and a pile of political rhetoric?
|
On August 30 2012 10:39 xDaunt wrote:
Thank goodness that is over....
Oh shit. Now Huckabee is up. It is like a bad dream.
You know what this convention needs? More ladies. More strong, powerful, independent straight-up lady-talk.
|
On August 30 2012 10:48 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 08:53 Leporello wrote:
Oh, and he invoked James Madison, saying that if Madison were here, he would surely agree with him about Obamacare being unconstitutional. Because we all know Madison's exact feelings on health-insurance and mandating insurance. That stuff was very prevalent in the 18th century. Oh it's very easy to tell if you actually know anything about the man and his beliefs. For example you can go to about 110:00 here. Unless of course you are simply engaging in the high-school level philosophizing that hey maybe he would have listened to Rage Against the Machine and like totally changed his mind. Or were you just going off with two made-up facts and a pile of political rhetoric?
You mean you aren't going to respond to my previous post, despite my painstaking efforts to work with your bold-italic, no-quote formatting?
Woe is me.
What does Rage Against the Machine have to do with anything? Please don't tell me what my musical tastes are. In fact, you obviously are on a full-on resentment trip.
|
On August 30 2012 10:52 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 10:39 xDaunt wrote:
Thank goodness that is over....
Oh shit. Now Huckabee is up. It is like a bad dream. You know what this convention needs? More ladies. More strong, powerful, independent straight-up lady-talk.
Careful what you wish for lol. Snoozelezza Rice up!
Is Palin attending? or has she already spoken?
|
Canada11367 Posts
On August 30 2012 10:52 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 10:39 xDaunt wrote:
Thank goodness that is over....
Oh shit. Now Huckabee is up. It is like a bad dream. You know what this convention needs? More ladies. More strong, powerful, independent straight-up lady-talk.
Ask and you shall receive. Condi takes to the floor. But her inclusion rather makes sense being from the last Republican administration.
Although between McCain and Condi, it sounds a little more neo-con, than Mitt usually sounds. (Minus his Iran tough talking.)
|
On August 30 2012 10:52 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 10:39 xDaunt wrote:
Thank goodness that is over....
Oh shit. Now Huckabee is up. It is like a bad dream. You know what this convention needs? More ladies. More strong, powerful, independent straight-up lady-talk.
Looks like you're in luck.
Being the pig that I am, I'd have settled for strippers.
|
For the Republicans in the thread -- any concerns about the lack of official foreign policy or relations experience with the Romney/Ryan combo?
While Obama was a neophyte when he entered the 2008 race, he did bolster his ticket with Biden. It is to fun and easy to joke about Biden, but the guy was the Chair of the Foreign Relations committee and brought a lot of experience to the table. And Obama did seem like a quick study.
It will be interesting if foreign policy comes up in the debates, and how Ryan and Romney will prepare for it.
|
Condi has been the strongest so far. Albeit a little bullshitty.
Huckabee was a disaster.
|
On August 30 2012 10:56 Leporello wrote:
You mean you aren't going to respond to my previous post,
Probably not because nothing in the first few paragraphs were remotely interesting but who knows. Insomnia or another slow day at work tomorrow and maybe.
In the meantime feel free for you and all your pals to believe it's because you're all so much smarter and I'm afraid and unable to respond.
|
I have to say, I enjoy watching this shit with you guys.
|
On August 30 2012 11:07 Defacer wrote:
For the Republicans in the thread -- any concerns about the lack of official foreign policy or relations experience with the Romney/Ryan combo?
While Obama was a neophyte when he entered the 2008 race, he did bolster his ticket with Biden. As easy as it is to make fun of Biden, the guy was the Chair of the Foreign Relations committee and brought a lot of experience to the table. And Obama did seem like a quick study.
It will be interesting if foreign policy comes up in the debates, and how Ryan and Romney will prepare for it.
Biden has nothing to do with Obama's foreign policy. Hillary and the Bush-era DoD holdovers did/do.
As for Romney/Ryan, I have no concern. They'll surround themselves with good people and be fine.
On a side note, how fucking awesome would it be to have Secretary of State Chris Christie?
|
On August 30 2012 11:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Condi has been the strongest so far. Albeit a little bullshitty.
Huckabee was a disaster.
Bullshitty, but ... natural. She has a certain level of seriousness and conviction. She almost benefits from not being too slick.
|
She was actually not too bad at times, I think I've just already overdosed on American Exceptionalism though, and she usually lays it on pretty thick.
|
On August 30 2012 11:12 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 11:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Condi has been the strongest so far. Albeit a little bullshitty.
Huckabee was a disaster. Bullshitty, but ... natural. She has a certain level of seriousness and conviction. She almost benefits from not being too slick.
She's not on the teleprompter either. I don't know how good everyone else is going to be, but that's the speech that is likely to be remembered from this convention.
Dr. Rice hit that one out of the park.
|
On August 30 2012 11:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 11:07 Defacer wrote:
For the Republicans in the thread -- any concerns about the lack of official foreign policy or relations experience with the Romney/Ryan combo?
While Obama was a neophyte when he entered the 2008 race, he did bolster his ticket with Biden. As easy as it is to make fun of Biden, the guy was the Chair of the Foreign Relations committee and brought a lot of experience to the table. And Obama did seem like a quick study.
It will be interesting if foreign policy comes up in the debates, and how Ryan and Romney will prepare for it.
Biden has nothing to do with Obama's foreign policy. Hillary and the Bush-era DoD holdovers did/do. As for Romney/Ryan, I have no concern. They'll surround themselves with good people and be fine. On a side note, how fucking awesome would it be to have Secretary of State Chris Christie?
Of course not NOW, I'm referring to the credibility he brought during the Democratic ticket during the 2008 election. His VP nomination was a direct response to McCain's credibility as hawk.
|
On August 30 2012 11:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 11:07 Defacer wrote:
For the Republicans in the thread -- any concerns about the lack of official foreign policy or relations experience with the Romney/Ryan combo?
While Obama was a neophyte when he entered the 2008 race, he did bolster his ticket with Biden. As easy as it is to make fun of Biden, the guy was the Chair of the Foreign Relations committee and brought a lot of experience to the table. And Obama did seem like a quick study.
It will be interesting if foreign policy comes up in the debates, and how Ryan and Romney will prepare for it.
Biden has nothing to do with Obama's foreign policy. Hillary and the Bush-era DoD holdovers did/do. As for Romney/Ryan, I have no concern. They'll surround themselves with good people and be fine. On a side note, how fucking awesome would it be to have Secretary of State Chris Christie?
Nah. I was thinking Secretary of Education, or we might need to leave him in NJ to keep them going the right direction. Nikky Haley head of the NLRB. Not sure if Condi would want to be Sec. of State again, but she would work.
edit:
I was thinking Joe Lieberman for Sec. State.
|
On August 30 2012 10:48 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 10:34 xDaunt wrote:
Christ. Now I remember why Pawlenty didn't get anywhere during the primary. The guy is better suited as an NPR anchor than a politician. LOL. Anyway, I found a tidy little post explaining the differences between the Canadian Pension Plan and Old Age Security, and US Social Security. In summary -- Jesus Christ the US Government is going to owe a shit-ton of money when the boomers hit retirement. Good lord. What the fuck are you guys doing down there! Show nested quote +
Canada has two government sponsored programs for retirement: OAS and CPP.
OAS stands for Old Age Security. OAS is non-contributory. You get OAS just for being a senior citizen. The primary qualifying factors are age and number of years lived in Canada.
Basic OAS benefit is about $500 a month (the values of Canadian dollars and US dollars are about equal right now). Low income seniors receive an additional supplement. OAS starts phasing out through repayment if a retiree’s income is above $66k. It completely disappears if a retiree’s income is above $110k. The low base benefit amount, the low-income supplement, and the clawback mechanism make OAS a means-tested basic safety net.
CPP stands for Canada Pension Plan. Citizens in Quebec have a similar program called QPP – Quebec Pension Plan. Like Social Security, CPP provides disability and survivor benefits in addition to retirement benefits. I only look at the retirement benefits in this post.
The current CPP tax rate is set at 9.9% up to $42,100, equally shared between the employee and the employer, just like Social Security. By comparison, Social Security tax rate is 12.4% up to $106,800. The maximum tax for Social Security is about three times the maximum tax for CPP.
Because CPP’s tax rate and wage cap are lower, the benefits are also lower. The maximum CPP benefit at age 65 is $960 a month. The maximum Social Security benefit is $2,366 at age 66, before any spousal or child benefits.
CPP also has a trust fund, but CPP’s trust fund is real. An independent CPP Investment Board invests the trust fund in actual marketable securities: stocks, bonds, real estate. Social Security trust fund loans out 100% of its assets to the U.S. government, which spent it on the general budget. When Social Security needs the money to pay benefits, the U.S. government must tax its citizens or borrow from someone else to repay the Social Security trust fund.
When it comes to benefits to a current or former spouse or life partner, CPP is completely agnostic. When a couple divorce or separate, their CPP credits built up when they were together can be split between the two. A CPP recipient can also choose to share a portion of his/her CPP benefits with a spouse or partner. In either case, the total benefits don’t increase. There won’t be a case where one person contributes and current and former spouses plus several children all receive benefits without any reduction to the contributor’s benefits. The splitting and sharing provisions in CPP address the uneven income and marriage/divorce situations very elegantly.
I see Canada’s OAS and CPP programs have a better setup than Social Security in the U.S. They are more of a safety net, less of a retirement program retirees can live on 100%. The CPP trust fund is real, and will grow. Family benefits aren’t free. These characteristics make Canada’s OAS and CPP programs more sustainable than Social Security.
So there you have it. Canadians get less monthly once they retire, however, they pay much less out of their income. Also there are RSP's (Retirement Savings Plan) which all Canadians are encouraged to purchase, which is deducted off their taxable income (you get taxed later once you draw money from it). So the CCP is not so much of retirement programs as much as it a program that keeps old people from dying like dogs. $1460 a month plus free health care is not bad. Would be interesting to compare Medicare to Canada's universal health care.
They sound pretty comparable then. I think the fully funded CPP system is a cleaner transaction than the SS pay as you go system but that might be nitpicking in the grand scheme of things.
|
On August 30 2012 11:17 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 11:11 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2012 11:07 Defacer wrote:
For the Republicans in the thread -- any concerns about the lack of official foreign policy or relations experience with the Romney/Ryan combo?
While Obama was a neophyte when he entered the 2008 race, he did bolster his ticket with Biden. As easy as it is to make fun of Biden, the guy was the Chair of the Foreign Relations committee and brought a lot of experience to the table. And Obama did seem like a quick study.
It will be interesting if foreign policy comes up in the debates, and how Ryan and Romney will prepare for it.
Biden has nothing to do with Obama's foreign policy. Hillary and the Bush-era DoD holdovers did/do. As for Romney/Ryan, I have no concern. They'll surround themselves with good people and be fine. On a side note, how fucking awesome would it be to have Secretary of State Chris Christie? Nah. I was thinking Secretary of Education, or we might need to leave him in NJ to keep them going the right direction. Nikky Haley head of the NLRB. Not sure if Condi would want to be Sec. of State again, but she would work.
Can we at least send him to the UN? I really, really want to see him tell other countries to suck our balls in a way that only he is capable.
|
Bullshitty I.e. Blasting China and Russia for blocking Syrian actions. Bahrain anyone?
Then schools remember No child left behind?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
