An amazing argument is playing out across the public and private sectors across several nations.
This argument deals with defined benefit pension plans.
The problem is very simple to define and (in theory) just as easy to solve. Whether we are talking about Social Security, the Canada Pension Plan or various public or private sector pension plans the problem is the same. Current workers pay premiums that fund the benefits for retirees. The benefits are paid out without any real connection to what those workers paid into the plan in the first place.
As an example, one pension plan I am aware of pays out (for life) based on the following formula: 2% x the number of years of service x average of your salary in the final 3 years. If one lives a very long time, the retiree will receive much much more than was paid in.
This problem afflicts all such pension plans. Social Security (USA) sets payments to begin at the age of 65. At the time that the program came into inception (1935) the average lifespan of workers was 67. Today it is around 80 and increasing.
The aging of the population and reduced birth rates has lead to projections that the worker-retiree ratio (which was 10-1) will soon reach 2-1.
In short, the program is fundamentally flawed. It is simply not built to deal with negative demographic trends. In fact, it was always doomed to fail since the human population simply cannot keep growing forever...certainly not at the rates that it had been.
So why all the hue and cry when corporations or governments try to fix this obvious problem? It points to a cultural shift in values. Where such programs were once a sign that society takes care of each other, now it has become a game of hanging onto your spoils and damn the consequences for everyone else.
Personally, I don't want to saddle my children and grandchildren with debt to pay for my retirement. If we want to avoid the fate of nations like Greece, then we need to eliminate or at least radically reform the way cherished programs like CPP work. Otherwise we are just sweeping today's problems under the rug for our children to deal with.
If anyone wants my advice, I suggest saving enough for your retirement assuming that you will get bupkus from the Canada Pension Plan. It's the right thing to do and the safe thing to do....cuz that might be the case anyway.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Gay Marriage - everybody seems to be missing the point
Today i'm going to blog about the Gay Marriage debate currently roiling the United States. While the topic is certainly controversial, I don't think that my opinion will be.
The fundamental mistake in our marriage laws is not that they exclude same sex relationships. The fundamental mistake is that such laws exist at all.
Historically the rules of marriage were governed by a religious institution and codified into law. Now this didn't lead to much dissension when an overwhelmingly Catholic country codified the standards as defined by the Vatican. However in this age of multicultural societies with multiple faiths, this is no longer meaningful or appropriate.
Why should the laws of Canada reflect the standards of the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church? I'll give you an example....under the laws of Canada, marrying your first cousin is permitted. This is surprising to many. Marrying your first cousin is allowed by the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church. However, it is not allowed under Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
There is no reciprocity with religious organizations. While a marriage in a Catholic Church is recognized as legitimate under law, the same does not apply in reverse. As one who has been divorced, I could not marry a Catholic girl in Church because in the eyes of the Catholic Church, I am still married. Rather curious since I am not Catholic and my ex wife is Hindu.
Those who claim to oppose gay marriage ostensibly for the purpose of defending the traditional definition of marriage should be asked which "traditional" type of marriage they are defending. Is it a Catholic/Anglican definition of marriage? There are "traditional" marriages in other faiths such as Islam and the Church of Latter Day Saints which would be considered invalid under the laws of Canada and the United States.
Really the "threat" to a traditional view of marriage comes from attempting to codify it.
Here is a really radical idea: Government should get out of the business of defining marriage. It's really not the place of Government to take one religion's standards and make them apply to all. A religious "Marriage" should be defined by the controlling religious authority. ie the Vatican can decide for Catholics and an Ayatollah can define marriage for Shiite Muslims.
I've attended communions in Catholic churches. Communions are not defined in law but it doesn't seem to make it any less meaningful to those who are receiving communion and their families.
As to the economic aspect of marriage such as rights of survivorship for property, pension etc, any two (or more) legally competent individuals should be able to sign a contract pooling their resources and agreeing on how to divide up assets upon dissolution of the contract.
Recently elderly sisters applied to the European Commission on Human Rights claiming that they were being discriminated against since they did not have rights of survivorship while a lesbian couple would. They lost the case but the pointed out an obvious flaw to same sex marriage as currently applied. Why is their sisterly relationship less valid than a same sex partnership?
In fact, if any two people should decide to live together in a platonic relationship, should their relationship not get the same recognition simply because they aren't having sex with each other?
My pension is something that I have earned by contributing. My employer's contribution is a form of compensation. I should be able to designate anyone I want to be a beneficiary....regardless of whether the beneficiary is a wife, husband, partner or friend.
Really I'm saying that it's a silly debate. Government should only do what only government can do. In this case, the Government should simply repeal marriage laws and replace them with a law allowing competent adults to enter an economic relationship if they wish, without passing judgment based on the rather bizarre issue of whether they are in a relationship where they are having sex with each other or not.
The fundamental mistake in our marriage laws is not that they exclude same sex relationships. The fundamental mistake is that such laws exist at all.
Historically the rules of marriage were governed by a religious institution and codified into law. Now this didn't lead to much dissension when an overwhelmingly Catholic country codified the standards as defined by the Vatican. However in this age of multicultural societies with multiple faiths, this is no longer meaningful or appropriate.
Why should the laws of Canada reflect the standards of the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church? I'll give you an example....under the laws of Canada, marrying your first cousin is permitted. This is surprising to many. Marrying your first cousin is allowed by the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church. However, it is not allowed under Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
There is no reciprocity with religious organizations. While a marriage in a Catholic Church is recognized as legitimate under law, the same does not apply in reverse. As one who has been divorced, I could not marry a Catholic girl in Church because in the eyes of the Catholic Church, I am still married. Rather curious since I am not Catholic and my ex wife is Hindu.
Those who claim to oppose gay marriage ostensibly for the purpose of defending the traditional definition of marriage should be asked which "traditional" type of marriage they are defending. Is it a Catholic/Anglican definition of marriage? There are "traditional" marriages in other faiths such as Islam and the Church of Latter Day Saints which would be considered invalid under the laws of Canada and the United States.
Really the "threat" to a traditional view of marriage comes from attempting to codify it.
Here is a really radical idea: Government should get out of the business of defining marriage. It's really not the place of Government to take one religion's standards and make them apply to all. A religious "Marriage" should be defined by the controlling religious authority. ie the Vatican can decide for Catholics and an Ayatollah can define marriage for Shiite Muslims.
I've attended communions in Catholic churches. Communions are not defined in law but it doesn't seem to make it any less meaningful to those who are receiving communion and their families.
As to the economic aspect of marriage such as rights of survivorship for property, pension etc, any two (or more) legally competent individuals should be able to sign a contract pooling their resources and agreeing on how to divide up assets upon dissolution of the contract.
Recently elderly sisters applied to the European Commission on Human Rights claiming that they were being discriminated against since they did not have rights of survivorship while a lesbian couple would. They lost the case but the pointed out an obvious flaw to same sex marriage as currently applied. Why is their sisterly relationship less valid than a same sex partnership?
In fact, if any two people should decide to live together in a platonic relationship, should their relationship not get the same recognition simply because they aren't having sex with each other?
My pension is something that I have earned by contributing. My employer's contribution is a form of compensation. I should be able to designate anyone I want to be a beneficiary....regardless of whether the beneficiary is a wife, husband, partner or friend.
Really I'm saying that it's a silly debate. Government should only do what only government can do. In this case, the Government should simply repeal marriage laws and replace them with a law allowing competent adults to enter an economic relationship if they wish, without passing judgment based on the rather bizarre issue of whether they are in a relationship where they are having sex with each other or not.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Brian Burke, Sports and Sports Writers
I often blog about sports. Other than my angry rants about politics, sports is my favourite topic. I've written about the importance of sport in my life from childhood til the present day. Playing and following different sports are very good avenues for learning many of life's lessons: the value of teamwork, sportsmanship, the value of preparation and hard work. However we sometimes forget that sport is important, in large part, because it is so very unimportant.
When I watch the Toronto Maple Leafs play my favourite sport of hockey, I know that it's not the end of the world if they should lose (Thank Goodness!!!). When the US Olympic team of collegiate players beat the mighty Russians at Lake Placid, it was called the "Miracle on Ice." But it was no miracle really. There were two teams on the ice and one of them had to lose. Yes Team USA were a bunch of collegians and the Russians were pros...it wasn't exactly Lazarus rising from the dead four days later!
With that in mind, I found it very jarring to read a column by Steve Simmons about a Canada Day visit to Afghanistan by Toronto Maple Leafs General Manager Brian Burke.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/01/burke-off-to-afghanistan
Steve Simmons takes issue with Brian Burke accepting an invitation to visit our troops serving in Afghanistan on Canada day. He seems to think it a dereliction of duty on Mr Burke's part to be available by phone on the first day that free agents can be signed. He says that the "optics for Leafs fans are terrible." He calls this putting "his own self interests ahead of those of the team."
Many strong comments have been made on the Toronto Sun website in response to Simmons' column. They are almost uniformly disgusted by what he wrote. I took heart from the response by readers. They were able to see the value and importance of what Burke did and were not swayed by the amazingly short sighted view expressed by Simmons.
Brian Burke has been in the news for real life matters before. His openly gay son was tragically killed in a car accident and he has been a regular marcher in Toronto's Pride Parade. When you saw this cranky, gruff speaking old Irishman speaking of the loss of his son, I couldn't help but think of how I would feel in his position. This was real life and made me think of real life matters. What if my son grew up and told me he was gay? Well I can say without the slightest hesitation that I wouldn't love him any less. Why would I?
I can also admit that there once was a time in my life where I would have been far less tolerant in my outlook. We all (hopefully) grow and mature and learn to see things for their real importance. Sports were a part of that maturation process for me.
I hope everyone playing pro sports realizes that they are extremely privileged to be getting paid to play a game for kids. I hope that most sports writers feel lucky to be getting paid to do what many guys do at a bar during Hockey Night in Canada....which is express their alcohol fueled opinions about various players.
Brian Burke obviously knows what is really important and what is not. Steve Simmons hasn't a clue. I feel sorry for Simmons to be living in such an insular world where free agent signings for a hockey team are more important than our troops risking life and limb in Kandahar.
Recently we saw the city of Vancouver get a black eye when some citizens didn't realize how unimportant the Stanley Cup really is. They took to the streets and rioted when their team didn't win. How pathetic. It was just a game after all.
So it is with Steve Simmons. He has embarrassed himself and his newspaper with his pathetic attempt to be serious, and in the process, showed that he should never be taken seriously. It is certainly not a crime to be stupid......thank goodness for Steve Simmons.
BTW, Brian Burke is American. When was the last time an American expressed his gratitude to the Canadian troops holding down the most dangerous part of Afghanistan? Ah who cares? The Leafs just signed Clarke MacArthur to a two year contract.
When I watch the Toronto Maple Leafs play my favourite sport of hockey, I know that it's not the end of the world if they should lose (Thank Goodness!!!). When the US Olympic team of collegiate players beat the mighty Russians at Lake Placid, it was called the "Miracle on Ice." But it was no miracle really. There were two teams on the ice and one of them had to lose. Yes Team USA were a bunch of collegians and the Russians were pros...it wasn't exactly Lazarus rising from the dead four days later!
With that in mind, I found it very jarring to read a column by Steve Simmons about a Canada Day visit to Afghanistan by Toronto Maple Leafs General Manager Brian Burke.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/01/burke-off-to-afghanistan
Steve Simmons takes issue with Brian Burke accepting an invitation to visit our troops serving in Afghanistan on Canada day. He seems to think it a dereliction of duty on Mr Burke's part to be available by phone on the first day that free agents can be signed. He says that the "optics for Leafs fans are terrible." He calls this putting "his own self interests ahead of those of the team."
Many strong comments have been made on the Toronto Sun website in response to Simmons' column. They are almost uniformly disgusted by what he wrote. I took heart from the response by readers. They were able to see the value and importance of what Burke did and were not swayed by the amazingly short sighted view expressed by Simmons.
Brian Burke has been in the news for real life matters before. His openly gay son was tragically killed in a car accident and he has been a regular marcher in Toronto's Pride Parade. When you saw this cranky, gruff speaking old Irishman speaking of the loss of his son, I couldn't help but think of how I would feel in his position. This was real life and made me think of real life matters. What if my son grew up and told me he was gay? Well I can say without the slightest hesitation that I wouldn't love him any less. Why would I?
I can also admit that there once was a time in my life where I would have been far less tolerant in my outlook. We all (hopefully) grow and mature and learn to see things for their real importance. Sports were a part of that maturation process for me.
I hope everyone playing pro sports realizes that they are extremely privileged to be getting paid to play a game for kids. I hope that most sports writers feel lucky to be getting paid to do what many guys do at a bar during Hockey Night in Canada....which is express their alcohol fueled opinions about various players.
Brian Burke obviously knows what is really important and what is not. Steve Simmons hasn't a clue. I feel sorry for Simmons to be living in such an insular world where free agent signings for a hockey team are more important than our troops risking life and limb in Kandahar.
Recently we saw the city of Vancouver get a black eye when some citizens didn't realize how unimportant the Stanley Cup really is. They took to the streets and rioted when their team didn't win. How pathetic. It was just a game after all.
So it is with Steve Simmons. He has embarrassed himself and his newspaper with his pathetic attempt to be serious, and in the process, showed that he should never be taken seriously. It is certainly not a crime to be stupid......thank goodness for Steve Simmons.
BTW, Brian Burke is American. When was the last time an American expressed his gratitude to the Canadian troops holding down the most dangerous part of Afghanistan? Ah who cares? The Leafs just signed Clarke MacArthur to a two year contract.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Royal Visit to Canada
The newspapers have given lots of coverage to the visit to Canada of William and Kate (aka, the Duke and Duchess of York).
The Toronto star has posted pictures of the three days they have been here so far.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1018492--william-and-kate-buoy-spirits-of-sick-visit-children-and-couples-at-rideau-hall?bn=1
So far they have attended a cooking workshop in Montreal.....this should prove very useful since the Royal Family is well known to cook their own meals?
They also attended a ceremonial tree planting at Rideau Hall. Prince William is shown holding a shovel.....how apt!!!
Another photo shows them visiting veterans and war brides. This one really got my dander up!! Will and Kate should have felt honoured to be in the company of people who have led such meaningful lives.
Why is Quebec Premier Jean Charest taking time to visit with the Royal Nothings? I could ask the same of Prime Minister Harper. The Governor General I can understand since he doesn't really have a job to do.
Why are our tax dollars being spent on such pathetic meaningless tributes to people who have really done nothing much in life to be worthy of such acclaim. George Will once wrote of Paris Hilton that her's "is the purest form of celebrity, unsullied by accomplishment, she is famous for being famous."
Our Royal Family is one notch lower than Paris Hilton in my books. At least she made a movie that was watched by many.
The Toronto star has posted pictures of the three days they have been here so far.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1018492--william-and-kate-buoy-spirits-of-sick-visit-children-and-couples-at-rideau-hall?bn=1
So far they have attended a cooking workshop in Montreal.....this should prove very useful since the Royal Family is well known to cook their own meals?
They also attended a ceremonial tree planting at Rideau Hall. Prince William is shown holding a shovel.....how apt!!!
Another photo shows them visiting veterans and war brides. This one really got my dander up!! Will and Kate should have felt honoured to be in the company of people who have led such meaningful lives.
Why is Quebec Premier Jean Charest taking time to visit with the Royal Nothings? I could ask the same of Prime Minister Harper. The Governor General I can understand since he doesn't really have a job to do.
Why are our tax dollars being spent on such pathetic meaningless tributes to people who have really done nothing much in life to be worthy of such acclaim. George Will once wrote of Paris Hilton that her's "is the purest form of celebrity, unsullied by accomplishment, she is famous for being famous."
Our Royal Family is one notch lower than Paris Hilton in my books. At least she made a movie that was watched by many.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
