What to do about MPs' pensions?

[Machjo]

WHat to do about MP pension pans, whereby they can work for a fea years and then live a cuŝy life for the rest of their lives?

Now to be fair to MP's, without a doubt, becoming an MP is somewhat of a risky proposision seeing that you have no more job security than until the next election. Fair enough. However, a cushy permanent lifelong pension only after a few years as an MP seems outrageous even taking the risk into account. Instead of such a cushy pension plan, why could an MP not, like anyone else who might become unemployed, simply have the government send him to school for a year while he's receiving EI, just like anyone else, so as to learn the necessary skills to get him back into the job market? Or does he not have confidence his ability to ever get back into the workforce? Or, more likely, he just perceives the stupidity of the masses and so milks it for all its worth?

What do you think?

 

[Cliffy]

Fire the bums!!!!!!

 

[Machjo]

Fire the bums!!!!!!

You're givin voters way too much credit. How can they resist the beautiful party banners?

 

[relic]

Who else,besides CEOs can give themselves big raises,in both pay and pension and not have to prove their worth it ?!

 

[JLM]

WHat to do about MP pension pans, whereby they can work for a fea years and then live a cuŝy life for the rest of their lives?

Now to be fair to MP's, without a doubt, becoming an MP is somewhat of a risky proposision seeing that you have no more job security than until the next election. Fair enough. However, a cushy permanent lifelong pension only after a few years as an MP seems outrageous even taking the risk into account. Instead of such a cushy pension plan, why could an MP not, like anyone else who might become unemployed, simply have the government send him to school for a year while he's receiving EI, just like anyone else, so as to learn the necessary skills to get him back into the job market? Or does he not have confidence his ability to ever get back into the workforce? Or, more likely, he just perceives the stupidity of the masses and so milks it for all its worth?

What do you think?

There's a formua for this that works quite well elsewhere- Average annual salary over top 5 earning years X 2% X number of years in service.

 

[wulfie68]

The problem is we want to attract our best and brightest into becoming our leaders so there has to be some incentive there. In recent years, we've also been after younger people, to help ease the transition from the Baby Boomers to the next generation. When we elect someone:

- we offer no job security
- ask them to put their existing careers on hold for the duration of their tenure, sometimes during their prime earning years for usually a lot lower salary than they would make in the private sector

This doesn't mean there can't be perks and open doors for former politicians but patronage jobs like the head of the Royal Canadian Mint aren't all that common, especially for members of the opposition parties.

 

[JLM]

The problem is we want to attract our best and brightest into becoming our leaders so there has to be some incentive there. In recent years, we've also been after younger people, to help ease the transition from the Baby Boomers to the next generation. When we elect someone:

- we offer no job security
- ask them to put their existing careers on hold for the duration of their tenure, sometimes during their prime earning years for usually a lot lower salary than they would make in the private sector

This doesn't mean there can't be perks and open doors for former politicians but patronage jobs like the head of the Royal Canadian Mint aren't all that common, especially for members of the opposition parties.

Show me an occupation where non performers do have job security. Why should they be entitled to a salary equal to what they are earning at a position they are experienced at while they are still "learning the ropes"? If they don't last in politics and are still at an employable age, a padded pension is irrelevent.

 

[wulfie68]

Show me an occupation where non performers do have job security. Why should they be entitled to a salary equal to what they are earning at a position they are experienced at while they are still "learning the ropes"? If they don't last in politics and are still at an employable age, a padded pension is irrelevent.

More often this is a case of the MP's party superiors that underperform and the MP feels the wrath of the voting public.

As for their salary, if we want the best, we have to pay them or we'll still get stuck with hacks... like we have been.

 

[JLM]

I think even our non performing M.P.s are doing quite well......................David Akin's On the Hill :: Helena Guergis and her mortgage: "In this town, nobody voluntarily resigns"

 

[jwmcq625]

I don’t believe that being a politician as a career should be encouraged by the public, simply because people only have a few good ideas before they run out, and get stale. Career politicians, do so not because they are an asset to the people, but because they have made the pay and benefits for themselves so lucrative it is hard to leave and get a real job, so they continue to sponge off the public purse.
As for being entitlement to pensions, I don’t believe politicians should expect, nor be provided with publically funded pensions. I say that because they are in effect simply fulfilling Term employment contracts, and the “Term,” ends whenever an election is called. In order to re-apply they must first seek the approval of the public by running in and winning an election. Having said that, a case might be made whereby a politician could be allowed to contribute a small fixed percentage of their salary to a self-directed RRSP, and have that contribution matched from the public purse. At least in that manner, when the politician leaves office, whether voluntarily or by losing an election, the total vested amounts in the RRSP would be taken with them, and the taxpayer would have no further obligation to fund a public pension for them. That would be fair for not only the politician, but even more so for the public purse.
I often wonder how much of our tax money is being directed to politicians who have retired many years ago, and we are still expected to fund full pensions for some who were in office for as little as 8 - 10 years, while many who are receiving OAS, and supplement are having to visit food banks to keep food on the tables?