# The Pension problem...



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

In my Dad's early work period in the 30's and forward to perhaps the 50s people were happy to have job and family generally took care of the old generation.

Come the end of the war and social legislation it seemed pensions were there for all hard workers who stuck with their companies.....my Dad collected for 30 years - just one year short of same time he worked for Inco and technically is still getting benefits for my mum.

NOW - many that counted on a similar long autumn are facing a very different situation and many in the work force thinking aside from the gov basic - CPP etc - not much is available for the large majority of workers.

With demographics....far fewer workers coming into the work place, and competition from abroad - pension outlooks are "here be dragons" for people, govs and companies trying to compete in a newly deflated era where gains many had counted on - right up the line to fund future pension plans for individuals and companies are gone and Gov is expected to make good on commitments perhaps rashly made in fat times.

What's gonna break????

I based this out of this article



> *Coalition calls for government protection for pensions*
> 
> Labour and seniors organizations seek guarantees in wake of GM liability concerns


TheStar.com | Business | Coalition calls for government protection for pensions

Where are you in the pension puzzle.....from all set to ...what's a pension???

I'm working when I thought I'd be kicking back........Changed plans?? Hopes??,,,,

I'd appreciate insight into those that lived through and saw the changes in the social net evolve and to my mind now are somewhat disintegrating.....

Is the retirement age too low to support the current structure??

Just kick around ideas and concerns.....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I don't expect to see much of my Canada Pension or Old Age Pension when I retire. I will get it, but then it will be clawed back in taxes. I would like to retire debt-free, which is why I forego vacations and will take as many extra courses for extra pay as I can handle. I don't want to rely on government for my retirement. With what my MUN pension should be and the money I should be able to earn teaching distance courses once I retire, we will be OK if we downsize. We shall see.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Come the end of the war and social legislation it seemed pensions were there for all hard workers who stuck with their companies ..."

Right away my Spidy Sense tingled with that line. Public Pensions did not arrive in Canada until the late 1960's; it's the US that had postwar (actually in 1935) public pensions. Nor does social legislation have anything at all to do with company pensions ... they were earned by hard negotiation and far too often, blood.

The majority of company pensions in Canada did not arrive until the 1960's and were fairly bare benefit-wise prior to the 1970's. During the 1970's and 1980's most pension plans were greatly enhanced via union negotiation to evolve the viable retirement plans we are familiar with today.

Generous pensions capable of doing away with the need to save for retirement are a relatively new thing, and although some of our parents benefited, and those retiring in the last two decades have, our grandparents probably did not.

Certainly my father, who worked for a private company that has one of the "generous" pensions I'm referring to if you retire today, only was eligible for a few hundred dollars a month when he retired in the mid 80's. Without the 30 years of contributions current workers in Canada have behind them, those early pensions had very little to offer in the way of help until quite recently.

So, the first thing that should be said is, there is no "traditional right" to a pension, and it's only very recently that anyone outside a few sectors (education, health care, public service) really had a decent pension to rely on.

A great deal of what you quote refers to the US-style Social Security, and is not applicable to the CPP at all. Social Security is (in practical terms) funded from General Revenue in the US; CPP is funded from a pool of funds set aside for the purpose.

Contributions to Social Security go to general revenue (through a sleigh-of-hand, but none the less, that's where they go) while contributions to CPP are collected by the Government of Canada but cannot be spent by that government ... they are handed over to be saved and invested. The CPP actually has money; Social Security has none.

If you are eligible for the maximum CPP and you retired this morning, you are eligible for a pension of about $900 a month. That figure will rise each year, so it's not indicative of what your pension may be in the future.

You will be eligible for your CPP (how much depends on whether you worked or not), for the OAS regardless of whether you worked or not, and possibly the GIS if you have no other income. If I were to retire today, I would be eligible for about $500 in OAS benefits to supplement the $900 in CPP.

The OAS is available to all Canadians and is your "Old Age Pension".

The Guaranteed Income Supplement is available to top off your income if you have no other income. The GIS is, essentially, a welfare cheque intended to supplement people who have only the OAS and with low or no CPP income.

If you expect to need more than about $1500 a month when you retire, you had better be getting on that, because the rest is up to you or your company pension, with this very second being a good time to get crackin'. 

Private funding will come from your pension plan through work and whatever you are able to put away during your working years yourself.

Most other pensions, including Canadian public sector pensions, many (but not all) private pensions, and US Social Security, have no actual cash pool to pay the benefits out, and no guarantees there will be any payment when you retire.

A good retirement planner that takes into consideration your CPP, OAS and GIC options is available here (English).

Your CPP benefits are yours. The OAS benefit will begin to be reduced once your retirement income is around $66,000 (today, will rise each year).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Interesting points, gg. Still, I would rather rely upon my own abilities to deal with my retirement rather than a government. I don't have to retire at age 65, but I would like to retire then.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Doc, I'd be curious as to what your position is regarding the article.

Do you support Ontario paying the Chrysler workers' pensions from the public purse when the workers' union's position regarding the same pensions in negotiations may be the reason the company that created the obligation is dissolved?

Is it better to take on the (much larger) pension obligation than to provide repayable loans to the company in the hope it can pay it's own pension obligations in the future?

Should Ontario have demanded companies provide higher contributions in the past so that there would be more than a mere $100 million in the Ontario fund that is supposed to act as a safety net?

The CPP fund is roughly 1,100x larger (that's after the losses of 2008); the $100 million seems like the Ontario program itself was an empty political promise made with false hope and many crossed fingers. They had 29 years to put money into it.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

The Globe & Mail is saying GM has a pension shortfall of around $6 Billion in Canada while Chrysler's pension plan for Canadians is almost fully funded, illustrating that it pays to know exactly how your own pension is structured.

They are also reporting that it was Ontario legislation passed in 1992 that allowed GM Canada to begin spending the pension fund.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gord I'm wondering about your reading lately.........

As I said people in the 50s were glad of a job.- you missed that earlier in the post....I never implied pensions were there in any strong way until the 60s.... - the labour unions really did not gain a lot of ground on that aspect until the prosperity of the 60s...

Also I quoted nothing from the US,

Aside from those points your post makes sense,....so retune the Spidey antenna 

I really think the idea of a long pension for all was a blip and Japan's failure at "lifetime security" for workers for both employment and pension is proof of that.

I think mostly the demographics are all wrong as it's a Ponzi scheme without new contributors plus people live way longer than the actuarians expected.

••



> Doc, I'd be curious as to what your position is regarding the article.
> 
> Do you support Ontario paying the Chrysler workers' pensions from the public purse when the workers' union's position regarding the same pensions in negotiations may be the reason the company that created the obligation is dissolved?
> 
> ...



This is the kind of discussion I was hoping for and quite frankly I don't have an answer.

I had no confidence in the "pension" idea for my working life - did not believe it was supportable over time and not really interested in the "quit work" concept.....oddly my Dad's pension cash combined with a make do 30's mindset will pay for a few things on the way and perhaps for the kids too....

I must admit I have strong issues with fat public pensions especially for politicians.......

The major company pool clearly was not designed with the melt down in mind and I can't support further funding beyond the insurance pool provided..

We do have a safety net and hardship can be dealt with.....but private company pension obligations covered by public purse beyond the pooled funds......unfair in my view.

There seems to be this sense of I want a good outcome with no risk if something goes wrong.
I find that disheartening - when public servants want equivalent or more pay to private yet the low risk of public funding.

Small and medium biz powers half this country and there is no security for them....

The big game was the "house = retirement" - well that's dodgy now and the taxes are the new rent.

Do I have a solution??? Not for the pension payments other than I'd want to see less spent by the public purse on politicians and public pensions.......it's setting up two classes.

*As a society??*

Up the retirement age to 75.

Be more strict on hiring practices to avoid discrimination against older workers...and maybe even active management ala the Commissionaires including active job sharing for ALL public jobs that are suitable for it.

Most of all...if people have a place to live - they can often get by on surprisingly little.
Provide a stock of affordable housing so those retiring with what looked like a decent amount can live reasonably even if they have to moonlight at McDs.
Base this on cashflow not property values.
There are strong cores for this as many cultural societies undertake retirement housing within their communities. Support this kind of coop.

Tax the hell out of speculation to support this and make higher density housing mandatory on main transit lines.
Provide low cost long term financing to all groups including developers and NGOs and cultural organizations who undertake affordable housing projects.

Keep programs like low cost programs for the first few hundred KW for power and utilities.....this supports not only pensioner but the working poor as well upon who we do depend.

I generally think, as Dr. G mentions about downsizing, those getting into retirement manage their funds better and rarely face the major hits of education and kids.
We take a huge burden off by providing healthcare.....if we just did the same for housing I think crafty pensioners can put their dollar stretching skills to good use for the rest.

letting them work longer and offering incentives for part time and job sharing can all aid this.
Many businesses welcome the maturity and work ethic a more experienced worker brings and they often are not in need of continuous increases in a business that is steady state more often than not ( few small businesses are really growth oriented and that's a good thing )

France screws up because workers are either full time with superb benefits or locked out entirely.... a dangerous class structure.

Trimming some of the fat from the public purse pensions ( I'd really hate to know the number ) and trickling it down to earning potential in municipalities and public works projects - hell even if its the flag waver for the construction sites would make a big difference. ( tie part time jobs to the stimulus packages as part of job creation )

Let's face it....we did it for kids - now the boom demographic is in the 60s......it needs some tinkering.....

Private biz is pretty much out of the pension game except for the top execs.

*I don't think it's fair or sustainable to have a public sector ( and a large one ) that is on an uneven footing with the risk takers in the private sector in small and medium business.
And that's at the heart of part of this problem with GM and personal pensions.*

Manning was on the correct track.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Pension needs to be adjusted to kick in at a point about 10 years before the average life expectancy.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I really think the idea of a long pension for all was a blip and Japan's failure at "lifetime security" for workers for both employment and pension is proof of that.
> 
> I think mostly the demographics are all wrong as it's a Ponzi scheme without new contributors plus people live way longer than the actuarians expected.


Agreed - I don't think a publicly or company funded pension is realistic for all, but I do think that it is possible to fund a comfortable retirement on one's own by living within your means and starting early.



MacDoc said:


> Up the retirement age to 75.
> 
> Be more strict on hiring practices to avoid discrimination against older workers...and maybe even active management ala the Commissionaires including active job sharing for ALL public jobs that are suitable for it.


Agreed - those that want to continue working, and are still able to contribute and be productive should be allowed to do so.



MacDoc said:


> Most of all...if people have a place to live - they can often get by on surprisingly little.


Agreed - but I'm not sure social housing is the only answer, or even the right answer, here.

The housing bubble didn't really get going till the turn of the century. The majority of people that are now approaching retirement age would have bought their homes well before that when affordability was still good.

In most cases there is no reason that these houses wouldn't have been paid off for years by now. Instead many baby boomers continued to rack up debt to fund an extravagant lifestyle and maintain an illusion of affluence.

I'm not suggesting that housing affordability is not a problem - it is - I just don't see it as a major problem for folks that bought their houses over ten years ago.

The "make do '30's attitude" you describe seems to be all but gone these days - although I wouldn't be surprised to see it come back over the next few years.



MacDoc said:


> ...and make higher density housing mandatory on main transit lines.


I can see the arguments for transit oriented development in urban areas, but I'm not sure how this impacts seniors directly.

Once you stop working good access to employment centres becomes less important, which gives more flexibility in living arrangements. Houses in outer suburbia or in smaller, more affordable, towns become more practical for people once they are no longer working.



MacDoc said:


> Keep programs like low cost programs for the first few hundred KW for power and utilities.....this supports not only pensioner but the working poor as well upon who we do depend.


Don't agree, I would rather see income supports if needed.

Artificially cheap utilities do not incent people to conserve scarce resources.



MacDoc said:


> Manning was on the correct track.....


Preston for Conservative leader! But there's already another thread for that...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good replies :clap:

It's vitally important that seniors and those on fixed incomes have access to transit for a variety of reasons. Their demographic is very high and they need access to part time employment, health services, local shopping and most important community. Mixed income and age high density like St; Lawrence Market work - really well when designed as an integrted communnity neighbourhood.
Hazel McCallion's biggest regret was not getting local transit and density worked out better for Mississauga.

The retired, especially those doing part time and working until 75 are not on a the same budget or schedule as the suburban family with kids not are they on the same income stream....and for that matter the working poor family are not either.
Nations with strong GINI indexes view access to affordable housing as important as access to roads, water and education. It's vital and an important part of national wealth as it underpins economic stability.

Housing is prone to exploitation and speculative pressures for that very reason.
If you think that started in the noughts you are very wrong.....Japan suffered after the nonsense in the 80s with out of control real estate and the affects still linger and it's only recently Toronto exceeded the later 80s prices which then promptly crashed some 40%,

The way to make scarce monetary resources and to fit part time jobs into the economy is to have density and affordable mobility ( transit ) in a tight area to jobs and economic activities. There is no reason affordable housing cannot be built on top of light commercial with the same transit serving both. That's what density is about and you only have to look to France or Tokyo to see density at work.
But both were subject to intense speculative activities - France did better at control than Tokyo at controlling it and speculative and inflation kill pension income and low income families and we have a huge bulge of that coming through the demographics just now and the resources are scarce to fund it.

Realize when I say social housing it's not just gov stock but coop and all forms of dispersed high density housing not subject to speculative pressure and based on cashflow models not ATM piggybank growth.
Modelled around median incomes for the population retired, poor students ( hell why do you think Universities have housing ) - 25-30% of the median for shelter costs..........the primary reason 30% of Toronto families are under the poverty line is shelter costs - period.
The upcoming bulge of retirees are going to add to the pool of problems as pension losses and rising taxes put more stress on limited incomes and there are fewer funding the programs behind them - 17 million fewer teens in the workforce in North America.....somewhat offset by immigration.

Many ethinic communities dealt with this on their own to provide affordable shelter for seniors - by pooling and building fx ed rent facilities.
I'd much rather see co-op and NGO handle this with gov support for financing and design that handled directly by gov. Universities do it as independent bodies but with gov support.
That's what I mean by an affordable housing stock - not subject to speculative pressures but geared around the cash flow of the demographic to use it.
And govs can provide the design help for density and the long term low interest loans to fund such projects without necessarily running them.
Fund the community and NGO efforts towards this end and use municipal power ( just as developers are required to fund roads and schools and services ) make it part and parcel of a well designed community where density/affordable housing on the transit corridors is simply part of the plan ALL the time...without creating ghettos.....the problem that arose in the 60s and still haunts many communities.

Tis is simply a matter of common sense......if we know the pension structure is not going to suffice for a goodly portion of the populace either it gets topped up directly as GM workers want or those falling through the cracks end up on the welfare rolls.
.....OR the basic costs of having a decent living on limited funds are addressed directly through keeping those costs, basic water, hydro, phone, transit and housing under control.

You say conservation????.....a million families in Canada choose between electricity and shelter and many are seniors on incomes that 30 years ago they thought would pay the basics......and don't come close.
That's who the first low cost 500 KWH serve - those already struggling - and they by nature must conserve as they have so little and let the heavier users by choice pay more of the freight.
The basic necessities, shelter, water, power, transit, communications ( that includes the internet these days as it's the facilitator for part time employment and efficient use of labour mobility ) all need shelter from upward pressure on costs and in fact the goal should be to reduce the costs as that benefits everyone, young and old with low or fixed monetary resources to draw on.

If you look at the rationale behind keeping university and college housing costs low to facilitate education - the same applies in spades to those on low incomes and many retirees are finding themselves unexpectedly in that category.

We probably have 30% of the populace that can take care of themselves ongoing into retirement either through their own efforts, working, strong pensions or a mix.
Another 30% of an aging populace risks being a severe burden on healthcare and social programs unless basic cost of living issues are addressed.
The remainder will muddle through between the two poles....forming groups to pool resources extended families ( already happening as kids don't move out..why - no affordable place to go ).

That lower 30% is going to be a horrid problem just as trying to find jobs for the baby boomers turned out to be - and they are a lot less flexible than youngsters.

Putting the demographic to work ( you can see it in the graying service staff at fast food outlets ) and setting up conditions so cost of living is not forever an upward spiral is critical and controlling speculative pressures on basics is fundamental to that.

It irks me to no end to see the waste and padding in the entire power generating structure in Ontario where an apprentice position can command $100k a year while the working poor can barely afford their power.
This kind of imbalance cannot continue given the demographics and the "new economic realities" which really are just a correction of irrational speculation.

People and govs based pension funding on a speculative model that just failed big time.
Time to take a different look at getting more from the money we have instead of always looking for more money. Make existing pension pools from individual to massive go further by actively keeping living costs under control and that will take a start at the very top ala Mr. Manning.

At this point a large demographic of soon to be retired are wrestling with divvying up the desiccated remains of an economic meltdown that had funded their dreams.

These are big forces as work as they were when the baby boom arrived in the first place.

Accepting that working far longer is the norm I think is already here.
Social agitation for different solutions is coming ( gray power emerged there for a while - might again ).
I see addressing affordable living costs as the key to avoiding many issues that will arise from the pension age boom.

The transit stimulus is terrific - that provides mobility and jobs.
There are other embedded costs ( insurance, tax load progressivity, legal fees and barriers to part time employment, gov efficiency ) that all need some social engineering and a flinty eye on the tax payer's dollar.
I suspect this retiring baby boom generation is going to have as much to say now as they did in the 60s for change.....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

My wife and I would like to downsize once I retire. We hope to sell our home in a rising St.John's market and move to a part of Nova Scotia where the housing market is somewhat static. Thus, we hope to unlock some of the asset value that has appreciated in our current home. Housing prices have not soared in St.John's as they have in TO, Calgary, Vancouver, etc, so even in this recession housing prices have been slowly rising here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Society too, must change along with the aging of the population.

We live less than a km from a strip mall that contains three banks, a Safeway grocery store, a medical clinic, an M & M store, a Tim Horton's, A&W, KFC, liquor store, dollar store, beauty parlour/barber shop, health food store and more. It takes up 2/3 of a long city block on the corner of the busiest two streets in our city of 60,000.

A developer wanted to build on the remaining 1/3 of the property and applied to have the zoning changed from commercial to residential apartments. Specifically to build two large seniors affordable housing units with underground parking. The complex would have 220 units available, allotted on an income based plan with varied rents dependent on a means test.

I saw this as a positive thing, given no need for public transit as everything a senior would want or need on a daily basis was within walking distance.

When public hearings were held, the local Chamber of Commerce manager showed up to oppose the project based on their contention the the city needed all the commercial land it could get. I wrote a series of editorials in support of the project, chastising the Chamber for its shortsightedness.

In the end, the building was approved and is currently under construction. Soon over 200 senior families will liven up that centre and make it a hive of activity. This happens to be our long time location to shop for groceries and it was busy before, but I welcome the opportunity for active seniors to become part of our area. (This is not a seniors care facility.)

All faucets of government have to step up and recognize the onslaught of boomers will require projects like this in the future. If you don't have the cash to build transit infrastructure, changing residential density rules to accommodate retirees and be novel in their approach to the issue is part of the solution, not stuck with their heads in the sand like a certain Chamber of Commerce I know.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"When public hearings were held, the local Chamber of Commerce manager showed up to oppose the project based on their contention the the city needed all the commercial land it could get. I wrote a series of editorials in support of the project, chastising the Chamber for its shortsightedness."


Good for you, Sinc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> as an integrted communnity neighbourhood.
> Hazel McCallion's biggest regret was not getting local transit and density worked out better for Mississauga.


Mississauga would have to be re-built from the ground up for that. 



MacDoc said:


> Nations with strong GINI indexes view access to affordable housing as important as access to roads, water and education. It's vital and an important part of national wealth as it underpins economic stability.


That's because the GINI index begins with overvaluing public housing at one of its core values. The GINI does not provide an effective argument.



MacDoc said:


> the primary reason 30% of Toronto families are under the poverty line is shelter costs - period.


Right, so if we transfer that cost to the public realm, we just absorb an even bigger debt. That's just a shell game: "See, we're paying for half your shelter costs! You're not poor any more!" If we pay for all their food and clothing we achieve the same paper solution.

I'm all for non-government social housing, but not more government ownership of homes. If we look at countries like France or cities like Paris, we can see that they are far worse off than Toronto or Canada economically, so I see no good reason to compare them favourably. Paris is completely bankrupt.

I'd rather see the real estate market ride and fall in line with people's desires and expectations. It is a dynamic market that needs the flexibility to respond to what people want and value--and that means prices will sometimes go bust.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... It's vitally important that seniors and those on fixed incomes have access to transit for a variety of reasons. Their demographic is very high and they need access to part time employment, health services, local shopping and most important community. Mixed income and age high density like St; Lawrence Market work - really well when designed as an integrted communnity neighbourhood.
Hazel McCallion's biggest regret was not getting local transit and density worked out better for Mississauga. ..."

Careful ... you've got your "Everyone Lives In Toronto (or a place just like it)" blinders on again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

gordguide: I work really hard to ensure I don't envision Canada as one happy St. Lawrence Market--which is incidentlly getting uglier all the time as condos are rammed into it. Let's turn those grain elevators on the 'skirts of Saskatoon into condominiums and build an arts colony around it!


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

gordguide said:


> " ... It's vitally important that seniors and those on fixed incomes have access to transit for a variety of reasons. Their demographic is very high and they need access to part time employment, health services, local shopping and most important community. Mixed income and age high density like St; Lawrence Market work - really well when designed as an integrted communnity neighbourhood.
> Hazel McCallion's biggest regret was not getting local transit and density worked out better for Mississauga. ..."
> 
> Careful ... you've got your "Everyone Lives In Toronto (or a place just like it)" blinders on again.


The transit part may not be pertinent everywhere, but I think the basic principle of making it possible for seniors to live within easy reach of amenities is a good one. 

Many people are perfectly capable of living independently long after they can (or should) no longer drive. So if you make a car a mandatory part of independent living, you remove independence prematurely. And that is not big-city centric at all. 

Does it make more sense for a small-town resident who can/should no longer drive to live on the outskirts, where even a young, healthy person won't be within walking distance of anything much, or right in the village, within walking distance of the grocery store, hairdresser/barber, restaurants, etc.? 

Some activities may always require a vehicle no matter where you live, but if people who rely on others for wheels -- whether transit, taxis, friends, relatives -- don't need that kind of support all the time, for absolutely everything, surely they'll be better off.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

GG


> Careful ... you've got your "Everyone Lives In Toronto (or a place just like it)" blinders on again.


80% of the population of Canada is urban and the rural is declining 8% per annum....let's concentrate on where the actual leverage for change and program application on scale is... 

The rural Finnish Credit Union can likely handle their small town community just fine as they have been doing.
It's the grey boomers we're talking about.....en masse.

••

iMatt...- exactly.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> I don't expect to see much of my Canada Pension or Old Age Pension when I retire. I will get it, but then it will be clawed back in taxes.


This is where a TFSA can come in handy. If your RRSP or other retirement plan is already going to generate a goodly amount of taxable income, it might be worth looking into making the TFSA a priority for private retirement savings for your remaining working life.

The last thing I want is an RRSP/RRIF that's too big. And that would be a RRIF whose proceeds get taxed at the same or higher rate than the contributions would have been. 

Ideally, my RRSP will generate an income within the lowest bracket, while everything else will come from CPP/QPP, OAS and TFSA. 

My RRSP is still some way from being "too big" but it's definitely something to keep an eye on. I think it's a myth pure and simple that we all need to try to build a million-dollar nest egg in our RRSPs. In many cases, doing that can lead to a retirement burdened by crushing taxation.

(Standard disclaimer applies: none of the above is professional financial advice.)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I see your point, iMatt. Howerver, my goal is to get out of debt and thus, there is no extra money for investment. My RRSP is not all that large, so I am not going to have a huge RIF payout each month.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Thinking about Pensions is like thinking about the sci-fi style future. With the lack of jobs and the fact that I may have to cash in my RSPs in order to make ends meet, retirement seems like a fantasy. Most companies that I have worked for are long gone, or are unrecognizable after "reorganization", so having my own pension plan has been a mandatory, as well as saving like crazy for a rainy day. With the recession, there are even less jobs available, and those that are available are part time and feature an hourly rate that is less than what I was making as a student twenty years ago.

With the short shelf life of companies, and in many cases, the greed of the corporate raiders that see pension funds like a bowl of jelly beans on their desk ripe for dipping into - I think the whole RSP program needs radical expansion, leading to the abolition of company pension plans that are not viable in the long run.

As for a retirement age - I think we need to have some flexibility, but we also have to have people retire so that younger people can obtain jobs. Breaking into the job force is a pretty big hurdle for young people these days, and not just the kids coming out of school, but a pretty big hurdle for those of us who have returned to school for further training in order to gain more technical skills. No one wants to hire someone that hasn't already worked for the company for ten years but is willing to work for minimum, or someone who is older and experiences in a field that is now obsolete, but wishes to use the transferable skills in a new direction. And all of it is pooped on by a recession that is now so grave that the Bank of Canada is basically loaning out money for little, if any, interest...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I think we need to have some flexibility, but we also have to have people retire so that younger people can obtain jobs." Good point, EP. I am not being forced to retire and all of my extra teaching is the specialized courses that no one else can teach. Still, once I retire, since I am teaching up to 20 sections a year, they will have the need for four more profs. Sadly, only one will be hired to replace me, and thus, students might not get their elective courses. We shall see.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

SINC said:


> Society too, must change along with the aging of the population.
> 
> We live less than a km from a strip mall that contains three banks, a Safeway grocery store, a medical clinic, an M & M store, a Tim Horton's, A&W, KFC, liquor store, dollar store, beauty parlour/barber shop, health food store and more. It takes up 2/3 of a long city block on the corner of the busiest two streets in our city of 60,000.
> 
> ...


Sinc, I commend you for going after them. The shortsightedness with greed in mind damages many things and in the end, the Chamber maybe didn't do any calculations on how much those seniors would spend in that shopping centre/strip. Maybe the Chamber did and it wouldn't be as much as new businesses, but it's important to make life easier for Seniors.

Regarding the topic on hand - I myself wonder about the future, but the wifey says it will be fine for us. She's a financial planner so she's been tucking money away in different investment vehicles for years now. It still scares me b/c I work from home and look after the kids so I don't have a pension, plus I don't live in her world daily so I can't exactly understand everything she says 

It's interesting for my generation (mid-late 30s) as most of my working friends DON'T have pensions. It's all up to them to decide on how much they invest and how they do it with their future plans. I look at my father-in-law who worked his tail off for 35+ years, buying into the pension and he has it pretty sweet right now to put it bluntly. His pension is more than what some of my friends make. Then I look back at my generation and unless one is a teacher or govt employee, it's tough to get jobs with a pension. Even then, we're seem to be so much of a 'spend spend spend' society...

just my thoughts..
Cheers,
keebler

To the OP, I think your idea of moving might be beneficial. I don't know much about living on the East coast. It seems to me that Nfld will see more benefits from the oil industry going forward considering there seems to be so much focus on natural resources these days.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"It seems to me that Nfld will see more benefits from the oil industry going forward considering there seems to be so much focus on natural resources these days." Yes, NL gets about 1/3 of its budget from the oil industry. Since we are now considered a "have province", we no longer get any equalization payments from Ottawa. This fiscal year, the provincial government had to either cut services, raise taxes or go into a deficit. The chose to run a $750 million deficit, after four years of surplus budgets.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Just drove through MacDoc's miracle "St. Lawrence" community. Just an absolute hell of hideous condos anchored by some beauiful heritage buildings. His judgment for this kind of things is based on his own aesthetic sensibilities. I would never live in such an ugly anthill, though I can understand a certain hive mentality that finds it acceptable. I see no reason why public policy should be used to force anyone to develop more of it--let the market dictate whether or where it builds such things, based on consumer preference.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> "I think we need to have some flexibility, but we also have to have people retire so that younger people can obtain jobs." Good point, EP. I am not being forced to retire and all of my extra teaching is the specialized courses that no one else can teach. Still, once I retire, since I am teaching up to 20 sections a year, they will have the need for four more profs. Sadly, only one will be hired to replace me, and thus, students might not get their elective courses. We shall see.


^^^
It would be good if the retirement can be coupled to a continuation of those courses that are beneficial to students and to the training and employment of junior professors.

Around these parts, big employers like Stelco were all about seniority, and when they cut, they cut the younger people, and thus, it ends up being quite the geriatric kind of place. Not that older workers should be chopped because of age, but people of my generation never had a fair shot at the good paying jobs. This whole generation is composed, for the most part, of people that have had to continually make due, and never have had a stable job or career.

Thinking about it, many of the places I worked for are gone, or have been reorganized so thoroughly that they are no longer the same. And since the electronics field on this continent has basically collapsed or disappeared, it has required me to return to school to gain an education in a field that is currenly collapsing and disappearing. So much for technology.

Out of all of the places my girlfriend has worked for, only two still exist, and her current place may end up folding.

One friend of mine scored a good job out of university, and in his 11 years at his desk, he ended up working for 9 different corporations, because it was all about mergers and buyout orgies. His current job is on the bubble because the company is looking to "cut costs", and outsource the writing of manuals and documentation to India (or wherever).

Many of my friends simply packed up and went overseas, some of them permanently. One fellow ended up ditching his low paying part time job here because he got tired of being threatened that the plant was going to move to Mexico unless they work more free overtime - and is entirely happy working four day weeks in Amsterdam.

We have some rather large problems in this country - and pensions and long term security are just a part of it. The Government just comes up with too many things that have unintended consequences - and I fear that what is left in Ontario will soon be shipped out whem McGuilty adds his 13% HST to the mess, because that will be all about inintended consequences and the large lineups at Bankruptcy Canada...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"It would be good if the retirement can be coupled to a continuation of those courses that are beneficial to students and to the training and employment of junior professors." Macfury, I offered to do just this, but there is no one currently on staff that could teach these specific courses.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> "It would be good if the retirement can be coupled to a continuation of those courses that are beneficial to students and to the training and employment of junior professors." Macfury, I offered to do just this, but there is no one currently on staff that could teach these specific courses.


^^^
It's all about recruiting those with a "can do" attitude. That has become a very rare species indeed, most people are just naysayers who refuse to do pretty much anything. At school, I was shocked by the number of students in the class that despite the fact they were in a Computer Aided Manufacturing program, they not only hated AutoCAD (which is one of the most basic tools), but actively worked to derail the classes and hold things up with continual dumb questions and persisting on not placing any effort into learning. Of course, this attitude was endemic to the course in general, as there were those who couldn't do basic math who refused to go to remedial courses that were available; and there were those who did not want to actually operate any of the machines, which is the point of the course in the first place.

I am sure that if such opportunity was provided, they could find a professor to step forward to gain the required abilities, perhaps as a kind of apprenticeship. But then, in this day and age, it's all about "me", and scoring a maximum paycheck through putting in the least amount of effort. And it isn't just at University, or in specific circumstances, but is endemic to pretty much all workplaces these days. It is making us uncompetitive in the world, and soon, we will not need to discuss the "brain drain" to the US (or wherever), but we will end up discussing the lack of skills and abilities.

Remedial courses are so needed, because some students may lack certain aspects of education. When I went to college, I reaped the benefit of learning those things that were not taught in high school, without impeding the rest of the class in any way. In my more recent retraining, I saw the very real problems of lumping people together that may or may not have the most basic of skills, and with no mandatory remedial programs or granting of exemptions for those who had basic math skills already - it turned into a big waste of time and money, detracting from those things which should have been core to the program (and instead, gave me a few hours every day to check out Failblog.org and other web sites...)

So I hope that upon your retirement, or the leadup to it, the University does not give up on remedial programs because without those programs, there will probably be many students that will end up struggling or failing because for whatever reason, they do not have the skills needed - skills that are easily taught by someone so inclined to teach...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lumber Joe's subtle spamming has been reported.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I've been self employed for 20+ years, so I guess I have a different perspective on pensions than most. I've always known that there was no magic payout at the end of my working days, so I've built equity into my business while maxing out the RRSPs from the salary I've been paying myself. The amount of salary is variable - it's a balance to keep both personal and corporate tax rates at their lowest. (Corporate income tax is lower than personal income after certain levels of income.)

Once I stop working, I'll start liquidating my RRSPs, and top up my income, as necessary, with dividends from the corporation (which are after-tax profits, so payable as dividends at a lower tax rate than a salary).

The secret, I think, is to live below your means _while_ you're earning, and save enough (in investments both inside and outside of RRSPs) to live approximately the same lifestyle once the money stops coming in. But that takes an awareness of current expenses, and planning for the future. And a good crystal ball.

The only publicly funded money I would possibly be getting would be CPP (if it's not bankrupt by all the boomers retiring ahead of me), and OAS (ditto).

The only thing that scares me is the prospect of runaway inflation. I remember the 80s. It would be devastating to see years of savings and investments become relatively worthless.

---

As far as living, transportation, all that: the community I live close to (4 km outside) is actually considered a retirement community. Our local hospital is fairly proactive about hiring & keeping their equipment up to date, and there is a very progressive auxiliary which raised $3M in a very short time for a CT scanner which saves countless trips into the Big Smoke.

We do not have any sort of regular transit system, but it seems in the village everyone who has mobility problems has scooters. Our district council has in the past been very proactive about having increased residential density closer to the village core, although there have been a few developers who have tried to put little 'pocket communities' outside of the existing infrastructure. All in all - we're not doing too badly. Could be worse. (We've had a few Albertans retire here bitch about the fact that they have to pay PST, and some of our other costs are higher, but they weren't here contributing to the economy when they were in the work force, so ... it's just part of the price you pay to live in paradise.)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"It's all about recruiting those with a "can do" attitude. " Very true, EP. When I was hired, we were told to focus upon teaching, which I did, and did well. Today, the focus is upon research and bringing in grants. Much of the teaching is left to grad assistants, TAs and sessionals.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Just drove through MacDoc's miracle "St. Lawrence" community. Just an absolute hell of hideous condos anchored by some beauiful heritage buildings. His judgment for this kind of things is based on his own aesthetic sensibilities. I would never live in such an ugly anthill, though I can understand a certain hive mentality that finds it acceptable. I see no reason why public policy should be used to force anyone to develop more of it--let the market dictate whether or where it builds such things, based on consumer preference.


I totally disagree. I think it is a success of high to low income earners coexisting with the confines of the inner City.

It may (does) seem dated aesthetically but so what, it's what's on the inside that counts. Compare it to the old Regent Park for example. 

Market schmarket. It will always favour the dollar over people and communities.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nobody has to live there MF yet many do and love it
Sorry your market meme just failed spectacularly world wide - I prefer an intelligent human community oriented hand instead of an invisible and often predatory one......

some do like deserted islands I suppose.....libbies nirvana ....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Nobody has to live there MF yet many do and love it..


Sue, they're welcome to go there if they choose. I'm saying that I'm really happy that relatively little public money has gone into that hideous anthill development.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Regents Park is much more appealing than most of the mess in Mississauga, and for that matter, Brampton. Ironically, for all of the reputation about Regents Park, Brampton is far more violent, and going to school is to place one's life into peril. Missisauga is hideous, and what's with their City Hall plunked in the middle of a mall parking lot?

I think all of the housing built since the mid-60's has been plain ugly. I prefer to live in a house, not behind some garage. All of these houses have ugly garages sticking out in front, but most people don't bother to park in the garage because it is full of useless crud.

In Hamilton, they have taken to "infilling" the city - thus, placing ugly staped together ticky-tacks, usually with garages hanging out in front, all over the place. And the new fad in this age of "conservation" is to place lights all around the house so that one can witness the ugliness even in the pitch black of night.

I think they should only allow new housing to go up when the population actually increases - and since the population hasn't budged by even one person in this city, new housing should only be allowed as replacement for places that burn to the ground, which these days in Hamilton, is an industry onto itself. Out in Ancaster, they are actually tearing down good solid houses that looked good and had nice lots with nice tall trees - so they can cram fifteen ticky-tacks onto it that have a postage sized lawn for the kids to play on.

They do other absurd things, like in Hamilton, the city really has been trying to get all kinds of housing downtown, and I mean big projects - but they forgot that there is no grocery stores or shopping downtown, and no jobs either except at the shabby discounters and tattoo parlours that dot King St. East.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Nobody has to live there MF yet many do and love it


I don't know that they "love it" - but perhaps they simply live there so they can chop the commute to work. The place where my friend lives at Harbourfront used to be fairly nice, despite having the Gardiner out back, but it certainly was close to his work (much closer than his previous commute from Hamilton), but with all of the recent condo construction, it's looking shabby and overcrowded.

People live in Mississauga not because they "love it", but because they have to in order to chop the commute to work. Mississauga is unsustainable, with poor public transit, virtually no places in which to walk, and it's all about having a car for pretty much all activities.

This is far different from the old part of Hamilton in which I live, where I can pretty much walk to everything, well, at least I used to until many places moved out of town and into "Power Centers" where one is again, forced not only to drive there, but to have to drive from store to store, instead of simply being able to walk and get things.

in fifty years, when the petroleum economy died, Mississauga is going to be a ruin filled with slums, while practically designed cities will be revitalized because people will not be able to do the four hour commutes to work.

It's all about unintended consequences, and in the case of dumpsites like Mississauga, what are they going to do with all of the useless garages when only the most wealthy have access to cars? And it's not just Mississauga - Burlington is now filled with the same poorly designed communities with the same lack of stores and public transit, the same diseases that are ruining places like Milton.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EP: Just make sure you cram both the rich and the poor into that same ticky tack development and you have something that MacDoc would be happy to call home. 

Except of course, that MacDoc currently lives on one of those lonely deserted ships in a sprawling low rise on environmentally sensitive land at the foot of the Niagara Escarpment.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I for one wouldn't want to live beside decadent, debauched rich folk. Let them live their wastefilled and idle lives elsewhere...

The current trends in "architecture" really do demonstrate the point that Mike Holmes makes - that we really do need to have some building standards. And not only in structure, but in looks. I don't think the Government should impose a certain look - but garages should be out back, off of an alleyway, and that there should be an actual front lawn so I don't scrape my arm along the front wall of the house when I am walking down the street.

It is entirely consistent for MacDoc to discuss how people "love" to live in the ticky-tack slums down around the St. Lawrence Market, with streets names after various Communist agitators, while he himself lives in the great undeveloped, far away from ticky-tack. Even though I live below the Escarpment here in Hamilton, I would never make the claim that people "love" ticky-tacks, but I know they are drawn to homes with the giant garage outside, because it is easier to just open that door and shovel the goods into the pile than to think four seconds about what they are buying and whether it has any utility or not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the perceived beauty in such developments is the involvement of tax money and the lavishing of attention on these glorious projects by public planners...these give them the aura of greatness.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

They actually do have mixed income - it was designed for that- like you would know..out of touch on a lot of bases.
Ideologues with no sense.

I pay for the shelter services I require....my landlord provides them....I'm quite happy with the arrangement.

•••

Cities will be moving more and more away from the whimsy and corruption of developers and speculators and towards planning as social equity trump casino ploys amongst the libbies who now find the ATM closed...likely for a generation.

Sustainable design and construction, density will trump sticks and bricks and gaudy appeal. Some seem to value form over function.

Equitable societies require people of all income levels working as a society....not just a pampered few turning their noses up at the hoi-pollio......how 19th century..

Guess we'll just get the old and infirm to clean streets for bread crusts......that'll solve the pension issue....and city worker costs all in one swoop.

••

Did the same survey on an international board


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> They actually do have mixed income - it was designed for that- like you would know


Get with the program--we have already been discussing this.

Thankfully the social housing sector in Canada is tiny compared to the countries you most admire. 



MacDoc said:


> Cities will be moving more and more away from the whimsy and corruption of developers and speculators and towards planning as social equity trump casino ploys amongst the libbies who now find the ATM closed...likely for a generation.


So we can see corrupt governments and insiders build the type of hideous public housing you favour? In your dreams. The government coffers are also bare and the city never got the taxation powers you thought it should have. No soup for you!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

You're on a roll, aren't you. Nice Seinfeldian parry there.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> They actually do have mixed income - it was designed for that- like you would know..out of touch on a lot of bases.
> Ideologues with no sense.


I live in the St Lawrence Market area. Believe me, this is an increasingly less-mixed income area... it's quickly homogenizing to one particular income level.

Sure, there are still the older, lower income co-ops and townhouses but they are being vastly outnumbered by the same condos you find everywhere... and there's a few more large condo projects going up right now.

Incidentally, did you know that they apartment buildings with the most number of work orders against it are owned and managed by the City of Toronto?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Incidentally, did you know that they apartment buildings with the most number of work orders against it are owned and managed by the City of Toronto?


They won't bully themselves into doing something. Imagine this sort of management on a grand scale.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

What Sonal observes in her own immediate 'hood is increasingly true of downtown TO in general... the poorer people are being squeezed out by accelerating gentrification and relatively steady, stable real estate market - both commercial and residential. Again, it's down to money and location.

I must say I do not share MacDoc's enthusiastic view that government control of the housing market will solve the housing/shelter problems of any given large urban centre. Government tampering with pricing would merely amount to a cynical exercise in pleasant optics and an accountant's shell game; the tax-paying public would remain on the hook for any issues arising (almost inevitably) from bad planning by well-meaning but essentially clueless bureaucrats.

Again, what might work in other countries may not successfully translate in Canada.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: I have never had any problem with the truly disadvantaged being helped to accommodation, but I draw the line at subsidizing people who do work of little skill and low value at low wages. They really aren't making it and I think they're being done a dis-service by being told that their subsistence lifestyle warrants a nice apartment on the public dime. If anything, this is also a wage subsidy for employers who hire low-wage workers.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"... but I draw the line at subsidizing people who do work of little skill and low value at low wages." Macfury, might you define what you mean by "little skill", "low value" and "low wages"?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You never will get it will you.

Are roads affordable???

Libraries

Schools

Parks

Water

Affordable does not mean free or government run....if a city plans it's roads and other facilities to be affordable then it damn well can with a portion of housing exactly the way a university does....

Fixed and low income which represent some 30% of the population do not have the luxury of "flexing" with market forces and playing the destructive inflationary speculative game that just meted down half the damn planet thaks to mindseets like yours.

Your distain for the workers, those before and after prime working age that underpin society is disgusting MF.

You'd have a toll at every intersection for whatever the market would bear.....and damn the consequences....

Fortunately that meme has just been voted off the island.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm of the opinion that most Canadian cities do not have a clue about urban planning that actually works. Most cities are only interested in an increased taxation base rather than in the future. 

Having always been interested in architecture, I can't help seeing MacDoc's version of urban utopia as post-wwII eastern Europe with its pre-fab concrete apartment blocks. I'm envisioning Toronto looking like this:









*









More on these monstrosities:
Panelák - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*
panelaky| cinziaky fanclub @ kyberia.sk


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Still, you could have one road into that community and one road leading out to "streamline" traffic. Or, just a quiet country road.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It's not an easy thing to address. It's remarkably difficult! But I sometimes feel the alleged solutions can be worse than the problems they are intended to address.

Seems to me that 'assisted housing' in the centre core of cities can all too often translate to a permanent underclass who end up feeling entitled to their downtown pads... who are underemployed and prefer it that way. Tax-paying citizens contribute to their piggy bank and the supply of funds is therefore endless and endlessly replenishable.

Neigbourhoods like the St. Lawrence Market have to have real traction and longevity; they have to be able to prove their sustainability over a long period of time - meaning decades, not mere years; they must be able to weather the crests and inevitable troughs of successive provincial administrations, never mind the normal surge and retreat of economic conditions. If that particular 'hood is now becoming more homogenized, perhaps the experiment has failed. Toronto's Regent Park, in many respects another such experiment, failed. It is now morphing into something new.... many decades after the experiment was unleashed. Bad planning was its undoing. No one yet knows if the new thing will be any more successful than what it replaces.

In any case, the land down in the core is worth a great deal, which helps explain the increasing verticality of the whole area.

As a not terribly relevant aside, not too many weeks ago I was helping a friend do a corporate photo shoot downtown. We were up around 28 stories and had an excellent view of the centre core. My friend mentioned how wonderful it would be if every rooftop in sight sported a garden, or even trees. That's the kind of change I'd like to see our urban centres embrace.... not so much artificially propping up the disadvantaged and spreading the hidden costs among the tax-paying electorate.

There's assisted housing on my own street, here in the east end. Given current and continuing construction trends, it's likely that, at some point over the next ten years, that house - itself worth far less than the very parcel of land it sits on - will be demolished and its current occupants will be given an option to live further out on the edge of the megalopolis. If they refuse, they'll likely be on their own.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hopeless.

How do students live??? - you use the phrase assisted housing as if some charity case situation.

Are you that beholden to the profits of the speculators and banks that you'll let everything be subject to the whims of the capital flows that choose to squat for a while and wring the neck of the community....

Why not just put the roads and parks, schools and libraries up for auction - no different mindset.

When a company locates a new factory say out in the boonies one of the key items is safe affordable housing for it's workers.....same with a university, a military facility ...they all build shelter for the people that are going to work in the community........, safe affordable shelter is a key component of ANY community as much as any other of road, sewage, .....maybe more so.

They don't have to be ghettoized as the Jane 60s nonsense.....cities all over the world have housing stock that is not subject to sale.....just like parks and other facilities are not subject to sale.

It's stupid view trying work everything around "market".......

Are university residences??? No they are purposed to be affordable for students on limited incomes....now we are talking about affordable shelter for those retiring, disabled,fixed income and the working poor.

There are many approaches to this from ethnic groups,, to NGOs to coops ....the KEY is mandating the inclusion AND providing long term low cost funding to build them......just like a road....

extend the meme,......

It's not hard to work out a $5-600 2 bedroom cashflow over a 30 year term.....

Hell people are DOING It anyways but it's a mess, splitup houses, basement apartments, if there were 4 and 6 plexes on each corner in Brampton there would not be 4 families in one 3500 sq' 2 storey in the middle of the crescent.

Planning part of it might just be a good idea.....like the other critical facilities....

We are going to see a huge wave of demand for this with the demographics.....it's possible to do , it's done elsewhere, it's a mindset thing.

It must be integrated into the community - not ghettoized. Hell even stodgy old Oakville knew that with mixed low rise housing in the North End - we lived in one for a while ( triplex townhouse ). Apartments, schools, triplex, middle and large houses all integrated within a block or two with an eye to age mix and income mix. There were even a couple of retirement homes in the mix....fancy that.....

••

and no it's not easy.....it takes a community with some willpower to recognize how important it is.
Canada's social housing stock used to be important......it got lost.....it won't be easy to get back.....it's as critical as that transit system going up....and getting more so as the population ages.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

What you're proposing sounds more like bare survival...as in water-food-shelter-fire.

Did I understand you correctly comrade MacDoc?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh spare us the crap......wearisome.......puerile.......did you even read it.....what a stupid comment.

THIS was planned an executed successfully in Oakville a couple of decades ago



> It must be integrated into the community - not ghettoized. Hell even stodgy old Oakville knew that with mixed low rise housing in the North End - we lived in one for a while ( triplex townhouse ). Apartments, schools, triplex, middle and large houses all integrated within a block or two with an eye to age mix and income mix. There were even a couple of retirement homes in the mix..


It was PLANNED....it was and IS affordable and has a variety of stakeholders..so is St' Lawence Community....planned, successful, affordable.....


If you can't or won't make an intelligent comment then stay out of it...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc, again your petulance is breathtaking. If you dislike the argument, slag, slag away - that about sums up your strategy. Take a deep breath, for your own sake; judging by your little emoticon, your blood pressure is redlining. Of all the people on this board you are the one least tolerant of dissenting opinions. It's remarkable, considering how open-minded you clearly like to consider yourself.

I'd like to respond to you further but it appears that the tenor of your arguments preclude reasoned discourse. Evidently you already know who the enemy is, know the solutions, know everything. I think I'll sleep on it and see if you're any less ludicrous tomorrow. Good night!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> MacDoc, again your petulance is breathtaking. If you dislike the argument, slag, slag away - that about sums up your strategy. Take a deep breath, for your own sake; judging by your little emoticon, your blood pressure is redlining. Of all the people on this board you are the one least tolerant of dissenting opinions. It's remarkable, considering how open-minded you clearly like to consider yourself.
> 
> I'd like to respond to you further but it appears that the tenor of your arguments preclude reasoned discourse. Evidently you already know who the enemy is, know the solutions, know everything. I think I'll sleep on it and see if you're any less ludicrous tomorrow. Good night!


Splendid assessment Max! You nailed it. :clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Are roads affordable???


Yes.



MacDoc said:


> Libraries


Yes.



MacDoc said:


> Schools


Yes.



MacDoc said:


> Parks


Yes.



MacDoc said:


> Water


Yes.

Although they are much more costly overall because government runs them. Your argument is fallacious, however, in that these items are not government run because it is better for government to run them, but because it is difficult to apportion the costs fairly. Yet in every case where you have the chance (greenhouse gases, anyone?) you demand "make the polluter pay!" 

Housing, however, is entirely different from these common items because it is easy to apportion costs--through rent and purchase.



MacDoc said:


> Affordable does not mean free or government run....if a city plans it's roads and other facilities to be affordable then it damn well can with a portion of housing exactly the way a university does....


I already know "affordable" does not mean free. But affordable is not a magic word. Affordable TV, affordable cars, affordable steak. Everything doesn't need to be affordable just because you want it to be, according to some arbitrary chart. When I can't afford something, I increase my effort or live within my means.



MacDoc said:


> Fixed and low income which represent some 30% of the population do not have the luxury of "flexing" with market forces and playing the destructive inflationary speculative game that just meted down half the damn planet thaks to mindseets like yours.


Those market forces were being heavily bent by government policy designed to do just what you are asking it to do now--making housing affordable to the less well off. It demonstrated fully that the only way to achieve this goal is to place a heavy burden on achievers.



MacDoc said:


> Your distain for the workers, those before and after prime working age that underpin society is disgusting MF.


You paternalistic attitude toward the working class is alarming. You see them as permanently disadvantaged and eternally unable to come to terms with their adult responsibilities, except through handouts.



MacDoc said:


> Fortunately that meme has just been voted off the island.


Me and my meme are still here.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF, clearly you forgot MD's stern directive to extend the meme. Didn't you get the meme-o?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> "... but I draw the line at subsidizing people who do work of little skill and low value at low wages." Macfury, might you define what you mean by "little skill", "low value" and "low wages"?


MacDoc's comments asisde, I am happy to define what I mean.

What I'm saying is that if your work is scarcely valued by society or by your employer--if you are permanently in the minimum wage category--I don't see any reason to permanently reward that situation with government supported housing.

The problem, as I see it, is not that housing itself is unaffordable, but that city zoning makes it impossible to provide low-wage earners with something they could live in while they improve themselves. Allow the private sector to build much smaller homes, and tiny, efficient apartments and condo units that could provide them with something comfortable--although something they would hope to leave eventually. 

This is not something for the government to involve itself in. It's an intricate balance between wages, housing supply and occupant/owner demand that can be satisfied by targeting this demographic with smaller, more efficient housing.

I am not referring here to the truly destitute and disabled who should be means tested and cared for accordingly.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> MF, clearly you forgot MD's stern directive to extend the meme. Didn't you get the meme-o?


My meme will continue to rise, like Glenn Close from a clawfoot tub! It is your meme that he ordered to be extended, like Silly Putty before it snaps (though I extended a meme for you.)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> How do students live??? - you use the phrase assisted housing as if some charity case situation.


I know how I lived. I borrowed some money and worked to pay my rent. Anything else is charity, though it is charity in varying degrees. Again, I don't expect a 50-year-old man to continue to rely on the housing charity extended to young pups who are wet behind the ears.



MacDoc said:


> Are you that beholden to the profits of the speculators and banks that you'll let everything be subject to the whims of the capital flows that choose to squat for a while and wring the neck of the community....


Grandiose nonsense. They are risking their capital, let them speculate and build as they choose. It's their money, not mine. They are not wringing anyone's neck--nobody is forced to buy what they produce.



MacDoc said:


> When a company locates a new factory say out in the boonies one of the key items is safe affordable housing for it's workers.....same with a university, a military facility ...they all build shelter for the people that are going to work in the community........, safe affordable shelter is a key component of ANY community as much as any other of road, sewage, .....maybe more so.


A paragraph ago we are condemned for kowtowing to big businesses and builders as MacDoc damns their foul hides. In half a heartbeat he's cheerfully describing how public funds can be used to entice big businesses by providing "affordable" housing for their employees. 



MacDoc said:


> It's stupid view trying work everything around "market".......


The market exists no matter how you try to twist it and shield yourself from it. The very existence of choice creates a market--which one ignores at one's peril.



MacDoc said:


> We are going to see a huge wave of demand for this with the demographics.....it's possible to do , it's done elsewhere, it's a mindset thing.


It's an _expensive_ mindest thing. Affordable for you, costly for me.



MacDoc said:


> extend the meme,......


Memmmmmmmme.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> I'm of the opinion that most Canadian cities do not have a clue about urban planning that actually works. Most cities are only interested in an increased taxation base rather than in the future.


I agree with this. The cities decide it's imperative that they offer one service or another, run out of money, then try to find a way to increase the tax base in order to fund the service that was introduced at their insistence. The worst example of planning bowing down to city government are these ludicrous "intensification" plans designed to make people move closer to TTC stations so they become TTC customers--as if the locations of the TTC station was adequate justification for building highrises that are given exemptions way beyond the normal height for the area.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Oh spare us the crap......wearisome.......puerile.......did you even read it.....what a stupid comment.
> 
> THIS was planned an executed successfully in Oakville a couple of decades ago
> 
> ...


As a matter of fact I did read _your_ wearisome...puerile...crap.

How many factory and mining towns now lie empty, how many students live at home or off campus, how much of military family housing is poorly maintained and bordering on dumps? Poor examples, all of them. MacFury already pointed out your contradiction for the rest.

The "Jane 60s" was exactly what you describe with your "Oakville" example. It was PLANNED, it was affordable. It's actually a better example than your little Oakville experiment because of its proximity to York and CFB Downsview.

It was always a mix of private residential houses, freehold townhomes, condos, apartment rental units, government housing(apartments and town houses), seniors housing, student residences (York U) and you didn't have to go past Sheppard to find military housing for the Downsview airbase. It was mixed income, too...fancy that. Personally I'm tired of hearing about that area from people who know nothing about the area and probably never been there or lived there. There are pockets like that in all of Metro from Etobicoke to Scarborough, but it was probably some media dork who made "Jane & Finch" infamous.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> but it was probably some media dork who made "Jane & Finch" infamous.


Or all the crime.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Or all the crime.


Not much more than in Jamestown, Regent Park, "the Jungle", "the Village", Tuxedo court, Midland & Eglinton, etc, etc, etc...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> Not much more than in Jamestown, Regent Park, "the Jungle", "the Village", Tuxedo court, Midland & Eglinton, etc, etc, etc...


Maybe it's the 'more' in 'not much more' that makes it infamous. Not the person reporting it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm not talking about reporting crime, I'm talking about constantly using "Jane & Finch" as an example for everything related to crime or "ghetto" in any discussion of the issue, anywhere, any time.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> THIS was planned an executed successfully in Oakville a couple of decades ago
> 
> It was PLANNED....it was and IS affordable and has a variety of stakeholders..so is St' Lawence Community....planned, successful, affordable.....


That is the first time I have ever heard Oakville being described as "affordable". This is one surreal moment! beejacon

The main problem with the St. Lawrence project, next to the fact that it is butt ugly, is that it squeezes the poor right up against the Gardiner. But then, just down the Gardiner and on the other side, rich people see fit to live 20 feet away from the craziest highway ever built.

I guess having it near the highway is good for the potential inhabitants, as it won't take them too far away from their old stomping grounds under the highway, and near enough to be an easy walk down to the empty lots and dumpsites along Cherry Street...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I agree with this. The cities decide it's imperative that they offer one service or another, run out of money, then try to find a way to increase the tax base in order to fund the service that was introduced at their insistence. The worst example of planning bowing down to city government are these ludicrous "intensification" plans designed to make people move closer to TTC stations so they become TTC customers--as if the locations of the TTC station was adequate justification for building highrises that are given exemptions way beyond the normal height for the area.


Of course that is Hogtown, where things are different. In Hamilton, the City actually gives land owners a fairly hefty taxbreak for not developing or improving their land - and if they do try to develop or improve their land, then it is all about the outrageous market value assessment scheme.

And at least in TO, they do try to hustle business up. Around these parts, they are still praying for the day, and spending a ton of money on getting an NHL team into the City, because somehow, a team that would end up being more pathetic that either the Leafs or the Sabres will somehow miraculously replace the thousand companies that have gone under in the past thirty years in this town.

Planning - otherwise known as graft, corruption and payola by other means, where people can not build something wanted or approprate for an area, but get saddled with some donkey poo of a building made to the lowest possible non-standards. And Hamilton is champion at that, since we had Mike Holmes check out one place, and he refused to work on it because he didn't think it could ever be "made right" short of dynamite...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

It's just a convenient place to note, since my cousin who lives in TO thinks that Jane & Finch is a far safer place than when he lived at Eglington and the 427 (where his car got shot up one evening). Just like Hell's Kitchen is to New Yorkers, even though Brooklyn is far more of a zoo. As for TO, I feel much more unsafe in Scarberia, especially anywhere around Susan Drive, where their is always some kind of crime going on - but none of those areas excel at crime like Nathan Phillips Square, where the crimes are so big, everything else looks penny ante...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nice :clap:










One part of making the city more affordable and sustainable. Low height entry too.

globeandmail.com: Bombardier wins massive Toronto streetcar contract


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It doesn't make the city more affordable. It's just a streetcar--it doesn't spout nickels.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

How's that thing going to make it through the gauntlet of potholes, especially at Spadina that has some car swallowers?

And if it runs along Queen Street, why do they call it Neville Park? Was he a former mayor or something? It sounds like the streetcar that takes passengers to the ghetto park where one can buy all of the crack or meth they want.

As for affordable - transit would be entirely affordable if Mayor Miller and Council would stop squandering the money on nepotism and white elephants. But then, we pay the same kind of fares to take our smelly buses in this town, but we don't have anything as cool as a streetcar (just old smelly diesels and some new natural gas units in the Hammer).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

EP: it's a streetcar. It runs on its own dedicated track bed. Potholes don't enter into the equation. That's reserved for the cars. The streetcars' track bed gets ripped up on a regular basis, however.... you can rail on about that, if you like. You'll be in good company.

Your flight of fancy regarding Neville Park and nefarious meth addicts is amusing. It's actually a swell, low-key neighbourhood; sorry to disappoint you. If you look hard enough though, I am sure you will find some class warfarists and carpetbaggers hanging about.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Neville Park is where some thugs beat up Neville Chamberlain in April 1940 after an imromptu state visit to Canada in April of 1940. To smooth things over, they had attempted to rename the piece of land Neville Chamberlain Park, but he handed in his resignation to Winston Churchill over his appeasement of Germany in the midst of this, so they just saved face and called it Neville Park.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF, to sum up, would you say that the Neville Park meme is not what it seems?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

An interesting concept, MacDoc. Seems that they would be wheelchair accessible as well.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> MF, to sum up, would you say that the Neville Park meme is not what it seems?


Exactly. It is an adulterated meme, of questionable origin bearing a verisimilitude not easily breached.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Interesting that the Bombardier proposal came in at half a billion dollars less than the Siemens one. That's a serous differential. Makes me think there's bound to be some major upticks in cost projections, even before the city takes delivery on that first prototype car.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ahh, a meme not unlike a dream. Not quite what one would initially deem!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Exactly. It is an adulterated meme, of questionable origin bearing a verisimilitude not easily breached.


"It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key." So said Churchill.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

_I dreamed a meme in time gone by...._


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Questions without answers ................... answers without questions.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I gotta be meme!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Meme river, wider than a mile .......... I'm crossing you in style someday.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

ooh meme-weaver, I believe you can get me through the night....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oh sweet meme-baby
How long must I meme?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thanks, for the meme-ories...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thank you as well, Macfury. Paix, mon ami.

YouTube - Bob Hope - Thanks For The Memories


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Max said:


> EP: it's a streetcar. It runs on its own dedicated track bed. Potholes don't enter into the equation. That's reserved for the cars. The streetcars' track bed gets ripped up on a regular basis, however.... you can rail on about that, if you like. You'll be in good company.


But perhaps you haven't been down to Queen and Spadina lately - it is less bumpy on the Moon. I can just see the streetcars gettig hung up on where the shoddy workmanship gives up the bun - like the giant transport truck that was swallowed up in a Hamilton pothole a few weeks ago. (The pothole was twice as big as my Matrix, and is on a road I travel almost every day!)



> Your flight of fancy regarding Neville Park and nefarious meth addicts is amusing. It's actually a swell, low-key neighbourhood; sorry to disappoint you.


What I can't figure out is why they call it Neville Park - rather than say, Queen St, which would be more descriptive of the actual route. In Hamilton, they usually use the name of the street the bus runs on, like Barton runs on Barton, Delaware runs on Delaware, Upper James on James - but I guess some others don't make sense, like when the King runs on Main and Queenston, or the Cannon runs on Wilson, and the Bayfront on Burlington, and there are no Bees on the BeeLine...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Geez, I was just at Queen and Spadina just yesterday! Didn't look like the moon to me... then again, I haven't been to the moon. Are you one of the select few who has? If so, I doff my hat to thee, sir!

Anyway, making sense of road names is probably a mug's game - though it's not an uninteresting game nonetheless. What kills me is the percentage of English Canadian towns which sport a King St., a Queen St., Yonge, Empire... the list goes on.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
They must have fixed it since I was last in Hogtown, as it has been about a year and a half since I have ventured there. I used to go quite regularly, but I cut back when gas got to $1.40 a litre. Queen and Spadina was quite the mess at that time. But at least TO has streetcars - the ones we had in Hamilton were gone by 1950, though the trolley buses lingered on longer - only to be taken out of service after the City invested in all new poles and wiring for them.

Many places have a King and Queen St. Many streets in the old part of Hamilton were named after early settlers and landowners, and other streets named after former mayors. These days, streets end up being named after relatives of land developers. The most rational naming was on the Mountain, were the streets were sequential, like W 5th, W 34th, E14th, E15th, etc... However, Burlington Street isn't in Burlington, nor does it go to Burlington. We not only have King, but we also have King William. We have a Beach Blvd and a Beach Road, where the Blvd actually is near the beach, while the Road goes no where near a beach.

Of course, the Mountain gives Hamilton a number of mountain accesses, all of which one has to become familiar with so that you know which road leads to which road. Beckett Drive goes from Garth to Queen, James Mountain goes W5th to James, Jolley Cut goes Upper Wellington to John, The Claremont goes up from Wellington to Upper James and down to Victoria, the Sherman Cut takes one from Upper Sherman either to between Victoria and Wentworth in the west, or over to Flock Road in the East, of which can end up on either Kenilworth or back on Upper Ottawa. Old timers will remember "The Hairpin" and the Ottawa Street Access. One has to know these things because there are so few of them, and taking the wrong one can lead someone three miles out of the way (or more). It also makes for some interesting "short cuts", like one can bomb across the city pretty fast by going up the Sherman Access, forgetting the cut, then bombing down Flock Road, but also, you have to know when it is "two ways" or "upbound / downbound only" at rush hours. These are things that people in Toronto don't have to remember, but are very confusing for outsiders, judging by the number oftransport trucks that attempt to get up the mountain by taking the street I live on - which leads to the stairs that go up to the College, or the Bruce Trail, or the old Radial Railway that goes to Brantford...

Not that any of this has anything to do with Pensions...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Not that any of this has anything to do with Pensions... " Good point, EP. 

I am only now starting to look at the various tax laws pertaining to pensions and retirement, although I have another four years (at least) to go. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

Pensions..mmm...one of my dad's pet peeves. He's a retired principal from Belleville, ONT. Not that he's complaining about the school pension and he's grateful for it. His biggest regret is all the money he squirreled away into the RRSPs and the fund has now rolled into RRIFs. He's being forced to pay astronomical amount of taxes and he believes that he would be better off if he hadn't invested in the RRSPs. 

Do you think he's right?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sharonmac, my RRSP is the one thing that may keep us afloat. I have a defined pension plan from Memorial when I retire, but since MUN profs have been some of the lowest paid university professors in Canada for most of my 32 years here, I would need an RRSP to supplement my pension income.

The current federal budget allows pensioners to split their pension income with their spouse. Thus, if my pension income is $50000 a year, I am able to split it with my wife and thus, we both declare an income of $25000 and we both take a personal deduction. This would bring our income down to $15000, and would put us each in the lowest tax bracket.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

sharonmac09 said:


> Do you think he's right?


He saved the money on his taxes when he put the money in, so I suspect that he'll be better off on the way out.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EP: The streetcar says Neville Park because that's the turn circle it is heading for--the last on the Queen East line. When it turns around, it will change its sign to Humber, the farthest point on the Queen West line.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> He saved the money on his taxes when he put the money in, so I suspect that he'll be better off on the way out.



It should only hurt if the 4% withdrawal from a RIF (the required minimum payment) and the defined pension, and any Canada pension, is higher than one's normal salary, or still keeps you in the highest tax bracket.


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

> He saved the money on his taxes when he put the money in, so I suspect that he'll be better off on the way out.


That's true Macfury. 
My father is saying that his pension + RRIF combined annually causes him to pay taxes totalling almost 45% of his total income. He thinks that he shouldn't have invested so much into the RRSP initially and paid the taxes then. He theorizes that he would have paid less total taxes over his lifespan. Seems to me that he is right. I think that he and many other retirees have the misfortune of falling into the higher income bracket.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

shronmac: I can only comment that your father is doing surprisingly well if his RRIFs and Pension exceed his original income. Still, federal taxes were higher when he put the money in, so it might all turn out a wash. Also, you have to consider what he did with his tax savings when he purchased the RRSPs. If he invested them, and earned a return, this is also part of the equation.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury is correct, sharonmac. Tax rates have come down, so the savings on taxes in the past is better than today. As well, only now is there a Tax Free Savings Account. So, had he put nothing in to an RRSP, he would still be facing big capital gains expenses, which I assume must be the case if his RRSP and pension income put him at the top tax bracket, which is for those who have incomes, after deductions, of $125,000.


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

Macfury: 
He invested some of his tax savings into the stock market. He must have lucked out on some stocks. It is entirely possible that he is engaging in one of our favorite pastimes-complaining about the taxes.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sharonmac, remember the old saying about death and taxes -- both are inevitable. Still, he is in good shape if he can complain about being in the top tax bracket.


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

Dr G. 
He is not in the top income tax bracket. His teacher's pension is only $30,000 so I don't really understand what is going on with him.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

He might have made so much money in his RRSP that the required 4% per year deduction might be enough to put him in the highest tax bracket.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Pensions do seem top of mind....

TheStar.com | Opinion | Pension crisis requires debate


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I have read that the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan is a huge fund of money and securities, even after this latest stock market hit. Luckily, they did not go forward with their purchase of Bell.


----------

