Unlocking a locked-in Pension (RRSP)

[oldman]

Commending the Ontario Progressive Party

Commending the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Press Release Regarding the Ontario Progressive Party Locked-in Pension Policy Announcement today, July 5, 2007

I wish to commend the John Tory and the Conservative Party for their progressive policy position allowing Ontarians to unlock their locked-in pension funds 100% at ages 55 and 65.
This policy change will enhance the quality of life and fairness for Ontario Seniors.
Retiring after 37 years and contributing money into a defined contribution pension plan in Ontario, I was shocked to discover that I did not have access to my pension money.
Isn’t this my money?
The maximum yearly withdrawal restriction on my Life Income Fund (LIF) enforced by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) ensured that two thirds of my pension money would be locked-in until death (average Ontario male @ 79 and female @ 84).
Is this fair?
At the moment of death, the remaining two thirds of the pension money goes to my spouse unlocked.
Is this logical?
Upon my spouse’s death five years later, Revenue Canada assesses the remaining pension money as income in one year usually at a higher tax bracket.
Isn’t this a tax grab?
However if you are terminally ill or in a financial crisis, you can get down on your bended knees with a fee of $200 to $600 of money you don’t have to ask FSCO for the money you do have.
Does this make sense?
Over a three year period, FSCO collected between $5 million and $15 million in fees from over 26,000 financial hardship applicants desperate to access their own pension money and only rejected 52 applicants.
Isn’t this bureaucracy at its worst?
Ontarians who have spent their working life building a pension are financially competent and do not require paternalistic government control of their pension money in their retirement years.
Bill Nafziger
Ontario LIF holder

 

[oldman]

Hi All'

This some information one of our members found while reading some of the Ontario Legislator records and I wanted to share it with you.

Let us remember we are talking about some of the very people that are now refusing to unlock pensions 100% for All the Citizens of Ontario at the Age of 55.
Something that the Saskatchewan Government did for their citizens in 2002.

I have taken the persons name out that is being talked about for now as all 61 Mpp's received this benefit in 1999.

Some of these people that received that benefit are now working to try and give the same privilege to the rest of the Citizens,
However there are some in power that feel that we should not receive 100% unlocking even though they received that privilege for them selves.

I would also like to mention that if our pensions were to be unlocked there would be no tax taken off until removed from your RRIF and then it would be taxed at it's normal rate.

The politicians had their money put in a RRSP . Something that they were advised not do do
__________________________________________________ ______________________________
ARTICLE


(( I'm sending you two quotes that make reference to the opinions of actuaries ... the first taken from the Hansard . L026B - Thu 9 Dec 1999 ... page 1930 (2nd reading prior to the passage of Bill 27).))

(( The words immediately below were spoken by John O'Toole (PC MPP for Durham East) ... as he towed the party line and spoke in favour of Bill 27. ))

"When we wrapped up the pension in 1995, there were those who, under the previous rules, were entitled to in excess of $1 million. I have a couple of friends who are actuaries, and we looked at the pension reform issues. I talked to one on a personal level and on a professional level, and I could, for the record, name the person. He's very much involved with the actuaries of Ontario. He showed me actuarially that a person like Joe MPP , at 51 getting $1.3 million, would actually actuarially collect about $3 million, and by settling for one point something million, the taxpayers of Ontario were actually getting off the hook, because what they were doing was buying an income fund for that person."

If Joe MPP had not been given a totally unlocked pension courtesy of Bill 27, ...yes ... quite conceivably ... the Ontario taxpayer would have been, over the years, on the hook for $ 3 million.

However, if Joe MPP had not been given an unlocked pension, he too would have been limited to a maximum annual withdrawal percentage, as regulated by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario on locked-in pensions ... something in the range of 6% ... on a $3 million account balance ... and an annual withdrawal of $180,000.00.

Even though that figure is staggering in and of itself, Joe MPP would still not have been able to access the principal. Like all other Ontarians holding locked-in pension accounts, his $3 million pension account would have be subjected to exorbitant taxation on death too.

The government would have in the future, been able to collect far more tax revenue from Joe MPP and the other 60 MPP's, if they all had been forced to adhere to the abhorrent restrictions pertaining to locked-in pensions ... leaving the majority of their pension accounts untouched until death.

Again, it wasn't the taxpayer who created the gold-plated MPP pension plan in the first place. It was self-serving politicians. It was also self-serving politicians who devised a scheme to wrap up the gold-plated plan in a manner that provided only themselves ... with maximum reward ... in the opinion of another actuary.

David Brown, a managing partner in the actuarial firm Eckler Partners Limited, chaired a five member consulting panel as the government moved forward with Bill 27. He said ... "The reason it is more costly is that they are crystallizing everybody as of (June 8) 1995, which is the most expensive value you could put on those benefits. If you froze the entitlements at that point and paid them out only when they actually retired or left the legislature, then they would be worth less money than the way they're doing it."

(( As I've mentioned earlier, all documentation that I've seen to date infers that it cost taxpayers $109 million to wrap up the gold-plated pension plan ... plus ... an additional ... $10 million to $20 million ... to cover the tax liabilities for the 61 MPP's ... as they moved their entire pension accounts to an unlocked status. ))

(( Again ... for sake of argument (which we know is not the case) ... even if each of the 61 MPP's had received a $1 million pension buyout . that only comes to $61 million. That is a far cry from the $119 million to $129 million the Ontario taxpayer actually shelled out for an extraordinary financial privilege that was extended to just 61 long-serving politicians. ))

(( David Brown, also an actuary, suggested the wrap-up could have been done in a manner that was significantly less expensive for the taxpayer. ))



((I can't help but think such work would again highlight this whole debacle for what it really was ... a deceitful action of a few ... to manipulate the legislative process for their own financial gain. ))

Again Sign the Online Petition, and write the Leaders of all party's & Finance Minister and your local MPP and tell them that you want these pensions unlocked ((LIF , LIRF , LIRA.))

http://www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html

 

[oldman]

Is this Compassion or Government Greed

Hi All I just sent this letter out to news papers and below
Dalton McGuinty , Greg Sorbara :
I have just been reading some correspondence that was sent to a friend by some Liberal Riding presidents.
I then started to think is this compassion for the seniors of Ontario or is it GOVERNMENT GREED.
If it is Compassion and the Liberal party feels that they have to protect Ontario locked in fund holders from them selves because they might spend their hard saved money that they saved for retirement.
It leaves me to wonder why then would the province of Saskatchewan , Alberta and Manitoba unlock !100% to 50% of the funds for their citizens.
Are these provinces not compassionate about their senior citizens?
I would belive they are. I would also belive that these provinces understand that Seniors are quite competent and are able to look after their OWN MONEY.
It also leaves me to wonder Why The Conservative Party and The NDP Party realize that The seniors Locked in Pensions Should be Unlocked 100%..
((They realize that people that have unlocked RRSP's don't run out and blow all their money , so why would people that had their locked in funds unlocked do that.))
Are these people not Compassionate. I belive they are. I also belive that the two above party's respect the wishes of their senior Locked In Fund Holders.
Another thing that really bothers me is that 61 MPP's of all party's had their pensions unlocked.
Why would they do that if unlocking these pensions were not a reasonable thing to do ?
Please don't tell me that Your party didn't vote for the unlocking as you have been doing in the past!!!
YOU and The OTHER LIBERAL MPP's Of which we Know all the Names ,new full well that you were going to benefit from the unlocking even though you voted against Bill 27.
If unlocking these pensions is so unreasonable. Why did all Liberal MPP's not leave all their funds in a locked in format. I am sure nobody would have stopped you!!!
I have come to a conclusion that seeing that the other party,s agree that the locked in pensions in Ontario should be unlocked for the people at age 55 or retirement 100% .
I would assume the MPP's of those party's who received their pensions unlocked also agree that the locked in pensions should be unlocked for the seniors.
I have also come to the conclusion that the reason the Liberal Party does not want to unlock these pensions is not Compassion , It is Liberal Government Greed.
A government that wants a large TAX GRAB from DEAD PEOPLES ESTATES.
For this I really belive that it is time for all the LIF Holders in Ontario to know full the story about our so called government for the people . The ones that say one thing in opposition and yet when they are in power do very little to correct this unjustness.
Bill Costello Box 56 Atikokan Ontario

 

[oldman]

A letter to Michael Brown ( Algoma- Manitoulin )

This is a letter that has been sent out to Mr. Brown

Good morning Mr. Brown,

Attached for your perusal, is an e-mail that I've sent to one of your colleagues, John Gerretsen.
I am also forwarding to you an e-mail sent to Caroline Di Cocco.

Mr. Brown ... all of these e-mails (and there will be more) highlight the fact that members of your Liberal Party spoke very eloquently against the hypocrisy of Bill 27 ... but at the same time ... upon Bill 27 receiving Royal Assent on December 22, 1999 ... accepted unlocked pensions anyway.
Several months back I received a letter from Finance Minister Sorbara, in reply to some serious questions I had raised concerning Bill 27. Most of his words were of the superfluous nature ... answering none of my concerns.
However the following paragraph definitely grabbed my attention.
Mr. Sorbara said on October 27, 2006 ... "With respect to your comments about Bill 27, I would note only that the legislation was passed despite the objections of Liberal MPPs."

Mr. Sorbara conveniently omitted the rest of the story ... the fact that Bradley, Caplan, Conway, Ruprecht and others from your Liberal party accepted unlocked pensions anyway.

Mr. Sorbara failed to mention too that Sean Conway even said it was "wrong and immoral" ... but subsequently accepted his unlocked pension, despite his own words of indignation.

Mr.Brown ... saying one thing but quietly, while no know is watching supposedly, doing just the opposite ... especially when it means there will be personal gain .......... has our Legislature degenerated to the point that this has become the modus operandi for all MPPs ... or is such behaviour just confined to the Liberal Party?

As Speaker of the House Mr. Brown, the parameters under which you rule the House go far beyond decorum and propriety. You do have the power to evict and suspend members from the House, should there even be the hint of slander.

How is it then, that this same level of decency, integrity, and sound moral principle have not been a requirement in the treatment of ordinary Ontarians, who hold locked-in pensions, as it relates to Bill 27?

Bill 27 should never have seen the light of day. The subsequent behaviour of all three parties as it relates to the EXCLUSIVE, EXTRAORDINARY FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE AFFORDED TO JUST 61 MPPs (of all party affiliations) courtesy of Bill 27, represents absolute contempt for the Ontario electorate!
Mr. Brown ... as Speaker of the House ... why has this atrocious legislation and equally atrocious behaviour of MPPs never been challenged?

I await your answer.
Kenneth Elliott

I would like to add to this letter that at the present time both the Progressive Conservative party and The New Democratic Party now agree that all Ontarions should be allowed to have their pensions unlocked 100% when they retire. They do not see it reasonable to keep the money from the people that saved it for their retirement.
Apparently the only party that feels that the seniors of Ontario are not competent enough to look after their OWN MONEY are the McGuinty Liberals

Bill Costello

 

[oldman]

A reply to Greg Sorbara

Hi All;
This is a reply that I e-mailed Greg Sorbara , Ontario Finance Minister in Response to the Response he made to my interview on CBC Radio July 30.

The full interview can be heard at the Ontario today Web site, Under Archive and then Pension Fight.

http://www.cbc.ca/ontariotoday/

Mr Sorbara;

I would like to thank you for responding to me on the CBC Radio Interview .

It has shown how little respect you and your party have for Senior Citizens of Ontario!!!

You or your party have obviously not even looked into the rules of locked in funds. You said.

"So for example pensioners who put in one half of the contribution into the pension plan are freed when those pension plans are transferred to the individual retire They are free to take that money out. This is just about the money the employer whether it is a school board or a municipality or a manufacture put in towards the retirement pension of that individual and that part of the bargain that we are trying to respect and at the same time trying to provide seniors with "

WRONG Mr. Finance Minister. Ask any Bank or Financial Institution in Ontario and they will tell You that all of these funds are locked in for ever.
If You feel that this is the way the rules should be then please notify every Financial institution to free up and unlock at least 50% of our investments IMEDIATELY. Then when Your Party unlocks the 25% in 2008. We will have 75%.

Quote " We are just trying to represent the bargain that was made when those funds were put in "

What would you know about a bargain ?

The bargain was that the Company would contribute X number of Dollars to the fund or the Employees would go on strike and cease working.
The Employers did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts.

The work force has always bargained with the employer for such things as pensions Drugs Dental Etc.

You and fellow MPP's obviously don't bargain as we see that You all just legislate things as Unlocking these very pensions for your selves, Giving Your selves enormous raises , Making sure that You have plenty of perks.

As far as Bargains You and 60 other MPP's broke their bargain and had their pensions unlocked. The Provinces of Saskatchewan , Alberta , Manitoba and New Brunswick Broke their bargains.

We did not see the employers drop out of pension plans as you said they would .

Quote " I think down the road many employers will say well you know what we are not interested in providing a pension plan anymore for our employees :

If they did their company would have no workers.

YOU SEEM TO FORGET The workers are the back bone of this Province and if they DONT WORK, there is NO PROVINCE.

I am glad You answered the Question
"Do senior citizens really need protection from unscrupulous investors? "

You stated "
I don't think that this has any thing to do with protecting senior citizens from investors whether unscrupulous or not."

I am glad You clarified this issue as this is the stance that many of the members in your party use for the reason for not unlocking pensions.

You Said " It's about simply honoring the agreement the trust relationship between the employer and the employee at the time those funds were put in "

Mr Sorbara: If this is the only reason that the funds can not be unlocked!!

We have no problem then Unlock The Locked in Pensions.

The agreement was that if the employer paid into a pension fund the employees would keep working., also many people were led to believe that these funds would be unlocked at time of retirement.

I would like to give you a example of what happened in my company.

When we came to realize that these funds would not become unlocked at retirement. We went to our employer and just plain said that we wanted our pension changed to a regular RRSP because of those unjust rules. The result was. The Locked in fund was shut down and then the company and ourselves started investing in a RRSP.

Why Don't You tell the real reason for these funds to be locked in.

In my opinion the real reason is not concern for the Employer or the Employee , It is the greed of Government wanting to latch onto these funds when the holders Die and the Money goes to the estate.

A much more compassionate and responsible thing to do would be to unlock these funds.
It would be better for the people of Ontario and better for the economies of Ontario.

When asked "All three major political party's are taking a stand on this issue. Do you see it becoming a election issue "

Your response was "No ah ah I don't at all I mean it's it's a relatively ah ah minor issue "

Well Mr. Sorbara !! You are gambling with your party's future.

My self I am not a gambling man but on this issue I think you would lose the Bet !!!

You Said " it is interesting to here John Tory talk about the fact that he would unlock up to I think 50% or perhaps a 100% .

My response to You is!! The Conservatives have come to realize that this is the Just and Fair thing to do.

To give the Seniors Care and Control of their OWN MONEY.

We COMMEND John Tory for his compassionate decision.

You were asked "So you don't think it's going to be difficult to plan financially What If" ( he cut Jerry off)

You Responded " No No I don't "

You also stated "fact is that most pensioners will be simply be able to go to a bank and say I have this asset and I would like to borrow 20 or 30 thousand dollars because we want to buy a recreational vehicle or we want to take the holiday that we never had "

This again shows how little you and your party have looked in to the issue of locked in pensions.

YOU CAN NOT go to the bank and say that you have so much in locked in funds and that you would like to borrow $ 20,000. or $ 30,000. The Bank will tell you that looked in funds CAN NOT BE USED TO BACK UP A LOAN.

I would also like to say. Maybe Seniors don't want to go into debt. Maybe Seniors would like to use some of their OWN MONEY instead of leaving it to their estate so the government can have a big tax grab.
Maybe Seniors would like to Diversify their money into other things. After all it is their money!!!

You were asked "Where did that 25% number come from? "

Your response "well we did an analyses of what was going on in other provinces. Most provinces do not provide any access Saskatchewan is the outlier because it provides 100% access but again it is a very small jurisdiction and it regulates actually very few pension plans. So other provinces have ah various mechanisms of access and we thought that this was just right within that great ah Canadian norm that was our target "

Here again it shows that You and the Liberal Party have not even looked into locked in funds and have very little respect for the Seniors of Ontario.

You say most provinces do not provide any access other then the province of Saskatchewan.

You know full well that some of the other big provinces do. I personally sent You all the information on what the other provinces have been doing.

But looking at the respect you and Your party have for seniors I could only guess what you did with that information. THREW IT IN THE GARBAGE I GUESS !!!!!!!!

You Said " we thought that this was just right within that great ah Canadian norm that was our target "

SIR I hate to think that the Finance Minister of the province of Ontario thinks that 25% is right within that great Canadian Norm!!!

That is pretty poor math to my standards that 25% is comparable to 100% in Saskatchewan 50% in Alberta and 50% in Manitoba which are being lobbied for the remaining 50% And 25% in the SMALL Province of New Brunswick. ((( By the way British Columbia is also being lobbied to unlock 100% )))

Bill Costello

 

[youngman]

Thank you

I just want to express my thanks to those of you who have taken up this cause.

I'm 30 years old and have recently quit my Provincial Government job to go back to school. A good sum was transfered to a LIRA earlier this year, and although I could have used the money to go to school, I did feel good that I would have a nest egg when I retired. I was shocked when I found out about all of the restrictions which have been placed on locked in RRSP's.

It sounds as if the legislation in Ontario is slated to change in the coming years. When I eventually do retire and have access to my funds, I'll have all of you to thank. I have signed the petitions, but if I can do anything for the cause, just let me know.

Regards
Corey

 

[oldman]

I just want to express my thanks to those of you who have taken up this cause.

I'm 30 years old and have recently quit my Provincial Government job to go back to school. A good sum was transfered to a LIRA earlier this year, and although I could have used the money to go to school, I did feel good that I would have a nest egg when I retired. I was shocked when I found out about all of the restrictions which have been placed on locked in RRSP's.

It sounds as if the legislation in Ontario is slated to change in the coming years. When I eventually do retire and have access to my funds, I'll have all of you to thank. I have signed the petitions, but if I can do anything for the cause, just let me know.

Regards
Corey

Hi Corey;

Thank You for your support. Good Luck with Your education.

Yes Hopefully we will convince the powers to unlock 100% and nobody else will have to deal with these outdated rules.
If anybody would like to help. Mail the MPP"s of all party's and tell them that you want these pensions unlocked 100%. We need to keep the pressure on. And also sign the Petition . I will be sending it again and again until they get sick of it.

Thanks Again. Take Care Bill Costello

 

[oldman]

A Open Letter to all Ontario Financial Institutions and Planers

A Open Letter to all Ontario Financial Institutions and Planers

Suppose you and your husband were left a sizeable amount of money on the death of a close relative. There was one condition. You must use the money to purchase a particular dream home that you and your husband had for years, always admired from a distance.

With the estate wind-up complete and your inheritance in hand, you purchased the dream house and sold your previous home all in one day.

Shortly thereafter you proceeded to move in to your new home. On moving day though, a building inspector arrived to inform you that there were certain by-laws in place preventing you from ever living in your new home. Your local municipality still wanted you to feel welcome in their neighbourhood though, so they offered you alternate accommodations across town. Upon inspection, you quickly realized these alternate accommodations were terribly sparse . almost pathetic when compared with your new home.

Given that you had no other home available, you and your husband begrudgingly moved in across town. Each day questions/thoughts arose in your mind as to why you were not allowed to live in your own new home. Finally you decided to confront the building inspector.

Here are the answers/rationale he gave you.

1.) Why can't we live in our dream home? ... because the municipality doesn't think you are capable of prudent home management. ... they think you might just let it fall into ruins ... they think you are incapable of providing general upkeep ... you might never cut the grass or shovel the snow ... you might never wash the windows or tend the gardens etc. .......... It is quite OK for you to have bought the house though!

2.) Why do we have to live across town in such pathetic conditions? ... because the municipality thinks that is more the quality of home suited to your abilities as a homeowner ... and the municipality is always looking out for the best interest of its citizens ............ It is quite OK that you pay the taxes on your new home though!

3.) ... but we own that new home! That is correct. You can go over there every day if you wish ... water the plants ... decorate . clean ... change the linens etc. etc. ... nothing like keeping your home in immaculate condition ... it certainly helps the re-sale value .you just can't stay there overnight ............. Once again, it is quite OK to own YOUR new home. You just can't live there!

4.) If it is OUR home, we want to sell it then because it has already appreciated in value. Correct again. It is your home but unfortunately we can't allow you to sell it. You might just go to the casino and waste all the proceeds. ............. Again, it is YOUR own home ... but we feel we must protect you from yourself!

5.) ... then we want to borrow against the equity in our home! Sorry ... we, can't allow that either. You see, we have designated your home as off limits to any creditors you might have . we call it protection ... again, protection from yourself ... Sorry ........... You do have another option though.

6.) What option might that be? When one of you passes away, the municipality will immediately allow the surviving spouse to live in the dream home ... we just can't allow both of you, while you are both living, to enjoy that privilege. ... Sorry ......... One final word .

7.) What might that word be? . If both of you pass away at the same time, your estate cannot claim that the house was your principal residence either, since you never really lived there. Therefore all proceeds from the sale of your home must be declared as income in the year of death and subject to estate taxation ............. Still ... be of good cheer ... after all, it was your dream home!

Mr. Financial Planner (CFP) ... in the above story (metaphor) .

(a) the inheritance represents the commuted value of a previous pension before it was transferred into a Locked-In pension
(b) the dream home represents a Locked-In pension
(c) the alternate accommodations represent FSCO's 6% annual withdrawal limit on Locked-In accounts
(d) the building inspector represents financial planners
(e) the municipality represents the Financial Services Commission of Ontario
(f) the rules and regulations quoted by the building inspector represent FSCO's rules governing Locked-In pensions

On a personal note Mr. Financial Planner (CFP) ... I don't think in a million years you would ever submit to such a ridiculous scenario of home ownership. No sane person would! Instead you would immediately become the most vocal person on the face of the earth, if presented with such stupidity, as in the above story.

As outlandish as this story is . it is the reality facing all Ontarians that hold Locked-In pensions.

8.) One final question .... who are all these new neighbours that have moved in beside our dream home? They all ... are apparently living in their new homes! Why are they allowed to live in their new homes and we can't?

Again, you are correct. Others are allowed privilege that you cannot have. Why? They are special people. Their names are Bradley, Conway, Eves, Hampton, Harris, Kormos, Laughren, McGuinty, Rae, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sorbara, Sterling, Wildman etc.

Each day your industry makes financial decisions that ultimately come under Mr.Sorbara's jurisdiction, as does the Pension Benefits Act. At the same time, your industry witnesses daily, the plight of Locked-In pensioners.

Why is there not a sustained fight from within your industry to expose the discrimination behind Locked-In pensions? Why are you not prepared to fight to the bitter end to quash this discrimination against Locked-In pensioners? Are Locked-In pensioners really of such little value to the financial service industry that all you can muster is ... "I hear your frustration"? After all, your industry collects MERs, commissions and administration fees from Locked-In accounts too.

Or is that the answer in a nutshell? Your industry makes money from Locked-In accounts in exactly the same manner as it does with Unlocked accounts . so it is just easier to look the other way ... because the whole issue really does not affect any financial service company's bottom line ... its corporate balance sheet?


When government(s) pass legislation as abhorrent as Bill 27, such passage does not also, automatically mandate silence from the people. People must be prepared to speak out against such atrocity, wherever and whenever it might arise! To do otherwise, is to stifle the only check and balance available against self-serving politicians.

There never was any means test administered confirming that just 61 special people in Ontario (special MPPs) were the only ones capable of managing their own pension accounts.


... is it easier, Mr. Financial Planner (CFP), to just to look the other way and comply, without challenge, to any and all regulations from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, no matter how discriminatory they might be?

By Ken Elliott

 

[Dixie Cup]

Re Locked-in Pensions

My understanding is that if you needed to declare bankruptcy, your locked-in pension is exempt as an asset. However, an unlocked one may not be (at least in Alberta)

 

[Kreskin]

A Open Letter to all Ontario Financial Institutions and Planers

Suppose you and your husband were left a sizeable amount of money on the death of a close relative. There was one condition. You must use the money to purchase a particular dream home that you and your husband had for years, always admired from a distance.

With the estate wind-up complete and your inheritance in hand, you purchased the dream house and sold your previous home all in one day.

Shortly thereafter you proceeded to move in to your new home. On moving day though, a building inspector arrived to inform you that there were certain by-laws in place preventing you from ever living in your new home. Your local municipality still wanted you to feel welcome in their neighbourhood though, so they offered you alternate accommodations across town. Upon inspection, you quickly realized these alternate accommodations were terribly sparse . almost pathetic when compared with your new home.

Given that you had no other home available, you and your husband begrudgingly moved in across town. Each day questions/thoughts arose in your mind as to why you were not allowed to live in your own new home. Finally you decided to confront the building inspector.

Here are the answers/rationale he gave you.

1.) Why can't we live in our dream home? ... because the municipality doesn't think you are capable of prudent home management. ... they think you might just let it fall into ruins ... they think you are incapable of providing general upkeep ... you might never cut the grass or shovel the snow ... you might never wash the windows or tend the gardens etc. .......... It is quite OK for you to have bought the house though!

2.) Why do we have to live across town in such pathetic conditions? ... because the municipality thinks that is more the quality of home suited to your abilities as a homeowner ... and the municipality is always looking out for the best interest of its citizens ............ It is quite OK that you pay the taxes on your new home though!

3.) ... but we own that new home! That is correct. You can go over there every day if you wish ... water the plants ... decorate . clean ... change the linens etc. etc. ... nothing like keeping your home in immaculate condition ... it certainly helps the re-sale value .you just can't stay there overnight ............. Once again, it is quite OK to own YOUR new home. You just can't live there!

4.) If it is OUR home, we want to sell it then because it has already appreciated in value. Correct again. It is your home but unfortunately we can't allow you to sell it. You might just go to the casino and waste all the proceeds. ............. Again, it is YOUR own home ... but we feel we must protect you from yourself!

5.) ... then we want to borrow against the equity in our home! Sorry ... we, can't allow that either. You see, we have designated your home as off limits to any creditors you might have . we call it protection ... again, protection from yourself ... Sorry ........... You do have another option though.

6.) What option might that be? When one of you passes away, the municipality will immediately allow the surviving spouse to live in the dream home ... we just can't allow both of you, while you are both living, to enjoy that privilege. ... Sorry ......... One final word .

7.) What might that word be? . If both of you pass away at the same time, your estate cannot claim that the house was your principal residence either, since you never really lived there. Therefore all proceeds from the sale of your home must be declared as income in the year of death and subject to estate taxation ............. Still ... be of good cheer ... after all, it was your dream home!

Mr. Financial Planner (CFP) ... in the above story (metaphor) .

(a) the inheritance represents the commuted value of a previous pension before it was transferred into a Locked-In pension
(b) the dream home represents a Locked-In pension
(c) the alternate accommodations represent FSCO's 6% annual withdrawal limit on Locked-In accounts
(d) the building inspector represents financial planners
(e) the municipality represents the Financial Services Commission of Ontario
(f) the rules and regulations quoted by the building inspector represent FSCO's rules governing Locked-In pensions

On a personal note Mr. Financial Planner (CFP) ... I don't think in a million years you would ever submit to such a ridiculous scenario of home ownership. No sane person would! Instead you would immediately become the most vocal person on the face of the earth, if presented with such stupidity, as in the above story.

As outlandish as this story is . it is the reality facing all Ontarians that hold Locked-In pensions.

8.) One final question .... who are all these new neighbours that have moved in beside our dream home? They all ... are apparently living in their new homes! Why are they allowed to live in their new homes and we can't?

Again, you are correct. Others are allowed privilege that you cannot have. Why? They are special people. Their names are Bradley, Conway, Eves, Hampton, Harris, Kormos, Laughren, McGuinty, Rae, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sorbara, Sterling, Wildman etc.

Each day your industry makes financial decisions that ultimately come under Mr.Sorbara's jurisdiction, as does the Pension Benefits Act. At the same time, your industry witnesses daily, the plight of Locked-In pensioners.

Why is there not a sustained fight from within your industry to expose the discrimination behind Locked-In pensions? Why are you not prepared to fight to the bitter end to quash this discrimination against Locked-In pensioners? Are Locked-In pensioners really of such little value to the financial service industry that all you can muster is ... "I hear your frustration"? After all, your industry collects MERs, commissions and administration fees from Locked-In accounts too.

Or is that the answer in a nutshell? Your industry makes money from Locked-In accounts in exactly the same manner as it does with Unlocked accounts . so it is just easier to look the other way ... because the whole issue really does not affect any financial service company's bottom line ... its corporate balance sheet?


When government(s) pass legislation as abhorrent as Bill 27, such passage does not also, automatically mandate silence from the people. People must be prepared to speak out against such atrocity, wherever and whenever it might arise! To do otherwise, is to stifle the only check and balance available against self-serving politicians.

There never was any means test administered confirming that just 61 special people in Ontario (special MPPs) were the only ones capable of managing their own pension accounts.


... is it easier, Mr. Financial Planner (CFP), to just to look the other way and comply, without challenge, to any and all regulations from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, no matter how discriminatory they might be?

By Ken Elliott

If one buys property that doesn't allow for subdivision why is one surprised when they try to subdivide and can't?

What would happen to pension funds if everyone was given the opportunity to withdraw their commuted value in cash?

Some of these locked-in accounts are funded by someone other than the owner. They elected to join the pension fund under the conditions presented when they joined. Why did they elect to join rather than simply fund their own RSP instead?

 

[oldman]

Hi Kreskin;
Quote ["What would happen to pension funds if everyone was given the opportunity to withdraw their commuted value in cash?

Some of these locked-in accounts are funded by someone other than the owner. They elected to join the pension fund under the conditions presented when they joined. Why did they elect to join rather than simply fund their own RSP instead? "]

When funds were unlocked in Saskatchewan , Manitoba , and Alberta . The world dident come to a end . There are still pension plans. It would be plain stupid to withdraw all their funds and have to pay a huge tax pay out.
also people right now in Defined benefit plans can when they leave their job take the funds out of the pension and transfer it into a locked in RRSP.

What this is all about is about having control of your own pension, Not about draining the fund.

I am glad you said some of these funds are funded by someone other then the owner. (( Some is the key word. There are hundreds of thousands of Defined contribution plans that are locked in and were funded 50% + by the owner. Besides all Pension funds are a benefit to keep the employee retained and is a negotiated benefit the same as Dental etc. It is just deferred until retirement.

When a Person leaves employment 2 things can happen. in a defined benefit plan if the person has the required amount of time in he/she can stay with the Company plan if they wish or in some cases can have the money transferred into a locked in fund.
In this day and age many people hold down 5 or more jobs. When they leave these jobs many are forced to transfer their pension into a LIRA. This money is no longer tied to the Company pension

I could keep going on and on about different circumstances that we have run into but I just dont have the time.

You also said . Why dont they join a regular RSP instead?
Many of us that have pension plans from years back were not given the correct information about our pension plans or we would have.

It is too late when you are at retirement and then you are told " oh no the person that told you your plan became unlocked at 65 was wrong!! Your plan doesn't become unlocked until you are 90 years old. Up until then you can only basically draw on the interest not the Principle "

The Best way to straighten out this Mess is to unlock all Provincial plans and Federal Plans.
It is all Your Money ,and why should some government tell you what you can do with it when they cant even look after the tax payers money. There is scandal after scandal of how the government is using tax payers money

Regards Bill C

 

[Kreskin]

Bill, I don't disagree with you but Mr. Financial Planner (CFP) didn't negotiate anyone's pension rules prior to signing up.

What are your thoughts on this? Someone is one year into their defined benefit pension. Do you support them having the ability to control their own finances by withdrawing all of it in one lump sum?

 

[oldman]

Bill, I don't disagree with you but Mr. Financial Planner (CFP) didn't negotiate anyone's pension rules prior to signing up.

What are your thoughts on this? Someone is one year into their defined benefit pension. Do you support them having the ability to control their own finances by withdrawing all of it in one lump sum?

Hi Kreskin:

Yes I know that the CFP dident negotiate any ones pension rules.
What Ken was trying to get across to CFP's was to inform their clients of some pitfalls in pension plans.
We know that there are some very Knowledgeable CFP's that inform the clients fully but there are also many that dont seem to know as much as they should.
I have had at least 7 or 8 that have e-mailed me them selves and said that they dident realize these pensions did not come unlocked at 65. Others of our group have also run into this.
We have CFP's that are working to help us achieve this unlocking .
I was given misinformation in my own pension plan by a very large financle institution.
We are trying to get the message out to all pension holders and planers. "" You may be in for a shock when you retire !! Your pension is not unlocked at 65.

In answer to your second question.

If a person was in a defined benefit plan for one year , they would not be able to unlock their money unless they were already retireing.

What we are asking for is pensions be unlocked at 55 years of age or your earlier retirement date, Not before (( this meaning unlocked when you retire)) if You are in a company Defined Benefit plan and You feel that it would be better to stay in . You have the option of staying in.

People that end up with 5 or6 LIRA's at retirement would be able to transfer them into a RRIF and then decide how much they wish to pay them selves each year. ((not have the Government tell you))
As I have said this is your own money.

I hope I have kind of explained it but if not feel free to ask any more questions and I will try and answer.

Take Care Bill Costello PS this is in no way a attack on financle planers

 

[oldman]

A Letter to McGuinty

This was a letter sent out to Dalton McGuinty in July . We have received a response which will follow

Good evening Mr. McGuinty,

The following e-mail with the attached letter was sent to Mr. Jim Bradley earlier this evening.

Would you please inform me ... and the many other seniors ... with whom I network daily across this province . why it is that you (the Liberal Party) are only willing to permit locked-in pension holders a one-time 25% unlocking privilege ... with total unlocking having to wait until age 90?

This is extremely disconcerting when one considers the following:

(a) members of the Liberal Party (some still elected members of the Legislature) belong to the group of 61 special MPPs who received totally unlocked pensions . courtesy of Bill 27 (An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act And The MPPs Pension Act)... full access being available at age 55

(b) you were quoted in the Toronto Star on February 27, 2002 Wednesday Ontario Edition as having said about Bill 27 ... "What we need here is an independent public inquiry that could be presided over by the provincial auditor or a judge ... This nothing short of a scandal"

(c) Michael Bryant spoke the following words about Bill 27 in the Legislature on Mon 13 Dec 1999 ... quote taken from the Legislative Hansard ... " a bill that blatantly gives opportunities to members of provincial Parliament that do not exist for the rest of the population. That is the height of the appearance of inequity, the height of the appearance of injustice and the height of hypocrisy.......... obviously we cannot support an act which treats MPPs in a favourable manner with respect to their remuneration from pension benefits, in a more beneficial way than the rest of the public.......... Are we going to sit in opposition and vote in favour of an act which contains provisions that are repugnant? No."

Mr. McGuinty ... both you and Mr. Bryant spoke the above words while your Party was in opposition. However, given that you have now been in power since 2003, your proposed 25% unlocking option to Ontarians holding locked-in pension plans, offered up just before the October 2007, election is highly suspect.

Please explain to the electorate. This includes seniors who are presently labouring under the confines of locked-in pensions ... trying to survive on the meagre withdrawals allowed of their own money by your government ... and those Ontarians who are years away from drawing pension benefits ... who are already participating in one ... but as is becoming painfully obvious . are not yet aware of the disastrous consequences awaiting them when they do reach retirement age.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOUR LIBERAL PARTY CAN ONLY OFFER UP A ONE-TIME, 25% UNLOCKING PRIVILEGE TO ORDINARY ONTARIANS ... WHEN MEMBERS OF YOUR OWN PARTY ... SOME OF THEM STILL SITTING AS ELECTED MPPs ... HAVE TOTAL, 100 %, UNFETTERED ACCESS TO THEIR PREVIOUSLY LOCKED-IN PENSIONS ... SUCH PRIVILEGE PAID FOR BY THE ONTARIO TAXPAYER.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS ALL BEING ... "NOTHING SHORT OF A SCANDAL" ... OR BEING ... "REPUGNANT"?

I await your answer ... seniors across this province await your answer.

Regards,
Kenneth Elliott

 

[oldman]

Daltons Response

This is Daltons Response

Thanks for your online message regarding locked-in retirement pensions.
I'm always interested in hearing about the things that matter most to
Ontarians.


Our government recognizes that Ontario's seniors have made and continue
to make invaluable contributions to our province's strength and
prosperity. Communities across Ontario are reaping the benefits of the
wisdom, knowledge and expertise of seniors. My colleagues and I believe
that all our seniors deserve to enjoy the best possible quality of life
and to be treated with the dignity and respect they have earned.


That is why to help provide security for seniors, we announced in our
2007 Ontario Budget that we are proposing to give seniors enhanced
access to their locked-in accounts, which originate with funds
transferred from pension plans.


As your comments would also be of interest to the Honourable Greg
Sorbara, Minister of Finance, I have passed on a copy of your
correspondence to him for his information.

Thanks again for contacting me. Your input is always welcome. My
colleagues and I look forward to our continued journey with you and your
fellow Ontarians to build a healthier, more prosperous Ontario.

Dalton McGuinty
Premier of Ontario

c: The Honourable Greg Sorbara

 

[oldman]

Response to Dalton

Response to Dalton

Mr. McGuinty,

Your response below is an affront of magnanimous proportions to all seniors
in this province who hold Locked-In pension accounts.

I just flat out ... don't believe you, Mr. McGuinty ... "My colleagues and
I believe that all our seniors deserve to enjoy the best possible quality of
life and to be treated with the dignity and respect they have earned."

Let the facts speak for themselves. Locked-In pensioners are denied but a
measly pittance of their own pension monies (per annum) while living ... but
on death the same funds that were denied during life are now suddenly
UNLOCKED for one purpose only ... so that you can RAPE and PILLAGE those
untouched pension monies through exorbitant estate taxation!

Locked-In pensions are INDEFENSIBLE, except that all MPPs have their
pensions in a similar format They are further INDEFENSIBLE, given the
extraordinary, exclusive financial privilege of Bill 27 given to 61 special
MPPs (of all party affiliations).

Why don't you, Mr. Sorbara and Mr. Bradley (MInister Responsible for
Seniors) immediately surrender all your accrued pension benefits (paid for
in part by Locked-In pensioners) to a Locked-In status ... that would be the
HONOURABLE thing to do. Then you might just appreciate the financial
discrimination you so strongly advocate for all other Ontarians who own
Locked-In pensions.

Instead ... you offer Locked-In pensioners a one-time 25% unlocking
privilege with total unlocking being available at age 90 ... when most
pensioners of course will already be dead. That is a far cry from what Jim
Bradley got as a result of Bill 27. ... and you have him looking out for the
interests of seniors ... Mr. Bradley's continued silence on this issue means
one thing only ... when it comes to pension benefits, Mr. Bradley firsts
looks out for himself!

Your former colleague Sean Conway, called Bill 27 (An Act To Amend The
Pension Benefits Act And The MPPs Pension Act) "wrong and immoral". He took
his unlocked pension anyway. Michael Bryant called Bill 27 "repugnant" ...
but since becoming Attorney General has become quite accustomed to such
repugnancy ... given that the exclusivity of Bill 27 has been allowed to
continue under his watch as Attorney General.

About Bill 27 Mr. McGuinty ... these are your words from the Toronto Star,
December 16, 1999 ... "The Progressive Conservative government is changing
pension laws to give a select group of MPPs, including Premier Mike Harris
and Finance Minister Ernie Eves, access to pension funds worth about
$850,000 each, Liberal Party Dalton McGuinty says."

You are, and have been all along, aware of the exclusivity pact of Bill 27
that gave 61 MPPs (of all party affiliations) 100% unfettered access to
their pension monies. Some of those 61 were Liberals ... some of them are
still serving as elected MPPs today in your party.

Your party's words of eloquence against Bill 27 were nothing more than a
hollow sham ...

MPPs who have integrity do not treat seniors (those holding Locked-In
pensions) in the manner in which your government has done since 2003.

Why do the 61 MPPs get 100% unfettered access at age 55 ... yet all other
Ontarians who hold Locked-In pensions will very soon, be entitled to only
25% unlocking ... with total unlocking coming a age 90?

What "means" test, Mr. McGuinty, was ever administered that justified only
61 individuals, who owned Locked-In pensions, worthy of having their pension
monies totally unlocked?

The "REAL" stench behind this whole deceit was and is the fact that ... the
61 worthy individuals who just happened to have their pensions totally
unlocked ... all were MPPs (of all party affiliations) ... and the hundreds
of thousands of other Ontarians who also owned Locked-In pensions have, in
effect have been told they are too stupid to mange their own pension
accounts ... and thus must be treated like total imbeciles by the Financial
Services Commission of Ontario (your regulatory agency, Mr. McGuinty) as it
doles back to them measly dribs and drabs of their own monies

Your actions tell seniors they don't deserve ANY quality of life ... except
on death when they can contribute to your scandals such as the COLLE-GATE
affair ... who is it that can't manage their money Mr. McGuinty??????

Any other names on the list of 61 come to mind Mr. McGuinty?

K. Elliott

PLEASE NOTE:

John Tory and the Progressive Conservative Party have endorsed 100% unlocking of pension funds (LIFs, LRIFs, etc.), 50% at age 55 and 50% at age 65.

The NDP endorsed unlocking of pension funds as MPP Andrea Horwath introduced private members bill #175 to unlock 100% of pension funds.

Bill Costello

 

[oldman]

A Message for the Ontario Liberal Party

A Message for the Ontario Liberal Party:

Please note that we are gathering support throughout Ontario to unlock 100% of locked in pensions at retirement for Ontarians. This growing ground swell of voters are well aware of the reluctance of the Ontario Liberals to unlock 100% of locked in pensions.

Prominent individuals that are supporting unlocking 100% of locked in pensions at retirement include:
(i)Professor Jack Mintz, an renowned economist with Rotman School of Management, U of Toronto
(ii)Malcolm Hamilton, an eminent actuary and principle of William Mercer, Toronto
(iii)Gordon Pape, a well known financial commentator

A copy of Jack Mintz’s article regarding “locked in pensions in Ontario” published in the Financial Post is copied below:


Unlock LIRAs: Workers who change jobs get hobbled with inflexible locked-in accounts. It's time to end this nanny-state paternalism
Jack Mintz, Financial Post
Published: Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Compared with the United States, with its bewildering and complex array of retirement savings plans, Canada has a proud record of levelling the playing field between pension plans and Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs):

We ensure that similar rules apply to them and we make them transferable. Given the evolving labour markets, with people quitting jobs frequently throughout their career, and given our ageing population, our federal and provincial politicians deserve credit for reducing tax barriers to labour mobility and savings.


Yet, one important form of discrimination remains: the locked-in RRSP. It puts millions of pensioned employees at a severe disadvantage compared with RRSP holders who change jobs.

Ontario's recent budget takes an initial step to correct this discrimination, but does not go far enough, especially when compared with some provinces that have done much more to remove this discrimination.

When a pensioned employee quits, a choice is made to keep money invested in the pension plan or to take out the money and invest it in a locked-in RRSP (either called Locked-in Funds or Locked-in Retirement Accounts, LIRAs).

The money cannot be accessed until a certain age, such as at retirement (this depends on federal and provincial pension legislation) and these funds must then be invested in a life annuity or Life Income Fund. With the Life Income Fund, the investor draws out money subject to mandated maximum and minimum percentages of assets held in the plan.
At the age of 80, remaining investments must be converted to an annuity (with 60% spousal benefit) or transferred to a Life Retirement Income Fund that allows the holders to manage their own money (but still subject to mandated withdrawal rules).

Unlike pensions, owners of employer and employee-funded RRSPs are far less shackled by their previous employer contract when they change jobs. The RRSPs can be cashed in any year without penalty, although the principal and accumulated income will be fully taxed, similar to pensions.
At the age of 69 (71 when the recent federal budget is implemented), the RRSP must be cashed out (and taxed), turned into an annuity or put into a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF), of which withdrawals are taxed.

Compared with the Life Income Fund owner, who must hold an annuity or a Life Retirement Income Fund, the RRIF owner can take out as much as he wants, subject to a minimum percentage of assets.

Given these stringent rules, employees have a good reason to prefer RRSPs over pensions.

Defined-benefit pension arrangements have been used by employers to keep their workers on staff, since employer contributions are geared more toward the end of the employee's career, a policy that is becoming inflexible in a world where workers frequently change jobs. Further, with employer responsibilities for liabilities and employee claims to surpluses upon wind-up of defined benefit plans, many companies have shifted to defined-contributions plans.
These operate like RRSPs in that the employee receives pension benefits based on the performance of invested funds provided by the employee or employer.

Nonetheless, with the locked-in rules for pension transfers, why even bother with a defined-contribution plan since employees could have the same risk and return, but much greater flexibility, with an employer-provided RRSP when changing jobs?

The usual argument against repealing lock-in provisions is a paternalistic one:

Workers don't know what is best for them and will cash out their pension savings before retirement.
This nanny-state view has been a basis for policy in some other countries, notably the United States, which has imposed penalties on early withdrawals from retirement savings plans.

Canada, however, has smartly avoided this trap by enabling individuals to have full access to their RRSPs without extra penalty for withdrawals before retirement.

Not only does this give greater flexibility for individuals, but also provides a significant incentive to invest in retirement funds, since individuals need not fear that their money is effectively locked up when facing unexpected contingencies.

Locked-in RRSPs are therefore particularly unfair to pensioned workers since they do not have the same rights to access their retirement funds.

With the recent budget, Ontario is proposing to allow individuals to unlock 25% of their funds no earlier than the early retirement date (usually 55 years of age), beginning in 2008, after consultations.
At this time, individuals can only access their own money if they show special need, once they follow a costly bureaucratic procedure.

According to the Canadian Association for Retired Persons, during the period of April, 2003, to March, 2006, almost 30,000 pensioners applied for relief, filling out a 23-page document costing anywhere from$200 to$600 when the application succeeded. Only 52 were rejected outright, leading to wonder as to whether this bureaucratic process is necessary.

While the Ontario budget is a baby step in the right direction, NDP MPP Andrea Horwath proposed in a private bill, supported by Conservative Bob Runciman, to allow 100% access to locked-in funds. This would provide similar treatment to that available to many MLAs, who are given access to their occupational pension savings.

Some provinces have gone much further than Ontario to relieve pensioners from onerous rules after leaving their employer.
Saskatchewan has been the most progressive province, providing for the full transfer of pension funds to RRSPs or RRIFs. Alberta and Manitoba allow pensioned workers to access 50% of their LIF funds, although Manitoba will soon be moving to full access.

The only federal initiative so far in this regard is to unlock funds for federal employees at the age of 90 (we should all live that long!).

It is time to unlock the chains put on pension savings of employees who change jobs or retire. Doing so will help contribute to labour mobility, better retirement plans and, ultimately, a stronger economy.
- - -
- Jack M. Mintz is Professor of Business Economics, J. L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, and Visiting Professor, New York University Law School.
© National Post 2007


Please consider unlocking 100% of locked in pensions at retirement for all Ontarians at retirement.

After all, it is their money. It is not government money.

Best regards,
Bill Nafziger

11 Whaley Ave.,
Box 94, Milverton
Ontario, N0K 1M0

Member:
Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders
Common Front for Retirement Security (with over 2 million members in member organizations)
CARP, working together to unlock 100% of locked in pensions at retirement (with over 250,000 members in Ontario)

PLEASE NOTE:

John Tory and the Progressive Conservative Party have endorsed 100% unlocking of pension funds (LIFs, LRIFs, etc.), 50% at age 55 and 50% at age 65.

The NDP endorsed unlocking of pension funds as MPP Andrea Horwath introduced private members bill #175 to unlock 100% of pension funds.

The Liberals offered a insulting 25% unlocking in their 2007 budget.

 

[oldman]

A Letter to John Tory

A Letter to John Tory
Mr. John Tory, MPP
Leader - Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario

September 7th, 2007

Dear Sir,

I am writing you in response to your announcement in July regarding
your commitment to fairness for all Ontarians concerning locked-in
pensions.

Although we haven’t met, you may be aware of me through your Economic
Policy Advisor, David Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin and I worked together, the
day before, to the extent where I provided the details and facts for
your information backgrounder and your subsequent announcement for
unlocking pension income the following day.

I thank you for addressing the needs and the quality of life for the
many retiring and retired Ontarians by committing to unlock all Ontario
locked-in pensions 100%. I’m certain all people in Ontario with
locked-in pensions will undoubtedly thank you as well.

As you are aware, there has been a significant lobbying campaign in the
province by a large number of private citizens, the Ontario Coalition
of Independent LIF Holders and CARP.

I believe listening to the voices and stories from people such as these
has led to your decision to right the wrong of your predecessor that
occurred within Bill 27 in 1999. Fairness, such as this will no doubt
give more people a chance to contribute to the province’s prosperity
and the ultimate right to manage pension money that is rightfully
theirs.

Although I would have preferred your intention to be 100% unlocking at
the qualified age or 55, whichever came first as was done for 61 MPP’s
in 1999, the 50% split at 55 and the remainder at 65 is certainly and
without a doubt a huge step in the right direction to ending government
interference in the personal and private financial matters of all
Ontarians.

As I’m sure your research will confirm, there is in excess of an
estimated one million LIF and LRIF holders in our province. That number
grows steadily as a number of people continue to be forced to commute
their DB (defined benefit) pension plans and convert their assets into
LIRA's (Locked-In Retirement Accounts) and eventual subsequent LIF's
and LRIF's due to plant closures and permanent layoffs. Obviously this
is a very large number of affected people, some of whom are unaware, as
yet, of the severely limited access they will have to their locked-in
pension once qualified.

However, additionally, there is much more to the real and total number
of affected people than those currently qualified holders of LIF’s and
LRIF’s. The actual much larger unrealized quantity exists in the
eventual and future holders of LIF’s and LRIF’s.

That is, in addition to the growing number of unfortunate commuted DB
pension plan recipients and the current holders of LIF's and LRIF's,
there are millions of other Ontarians working for companies that are
currently in possession of DC (defined contribution) type pension
plans.
These DC plans accrue deferred pension plan assets that are also in the
form of a locked-in component of the plan member’s overall pension
plan. The actual percentage and amount is determined by each
individuals plan arrangement with their employer. That component
provided by the employer’s contributions will also be regulated, one
day, by the Ontario Pension Benefits Act in the form of a locked-in
fund.

In the early years of building these pension assets, little attention
is paid to these monies since the age of 55 is often far away and thus
generally out of the minds of these younger workers.

As the number of holders of DC type pension plans increase, so does the
importance of passing legislation, as you’ve announced, to deal with
that eventuality in terms of sufficiency and predictable pension
planning.

It is my belief that you consider recognizing this “other” growing body
of future “LIF” and “LRIF” holders throughout your campaign when
speaking about your commitment to unlock Ontario’s pensions and that
you include this “lesser known”, much "larger quantity" of individuals.
One day they too will be affected by your intended positive changes to
the pension legislation pertaining to locked-in pensions as governed by
the Ontario PBA.

This significantly large pool of people, once educated to the future
liability of the DC pension, will no doubt be thankful, appreciative
and responsive to a government that intends to ensure that their future
years, as well, are not shackled by paternalistic and restrictive
legislation preventing them from full control over their future
retirement funds.

In closing, and as every vote counts, I believe it is an important
strategy to inform and educate not only the current holders of LIF’s or
LRIF’s in Ontario of your intention to unlock their pension assets, but
the huge number of future holders of locked-in pensions as well.

Getting this message out to all affected people is paramount since the
component of a DC type locked-in pension plan and future unfortunate
recipients of commuted DB plans, affects far more additional people
than those current holders of LIF’s and LRIF’s.

Informing these two groups of people affected by locked-in pensions,
both present and future, is a very significant opportunity for you and
your party to recognize and harness the necessary support in order to
carry out your intention to unlock pensions in your bid to become the
ruling party in this great province of ours. A province founded and
built under laws of fairness, equality, and freedom of lifestyle choice
not only during our working years, but as well, during those all too
often relatively precious few retirement years.

Thank You.


Sincerely,
Grant Fleury
Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

 

[oldman]

Hi ;

There is a new site on locked in funds at the CARP web site.

http://www2.carp.ca/display.cfm?cabi...&libraryID=102

Regards Bill Costello , The Ontario Coalition of Independent LIF Holders

 

[oldman]

Dear Bill,
I am pleased to be writing this letter in support of unlocking the pensions of those Ontarians with LIF, LIRA, and LRIF pension holdings. My colleague Andrea Horwath, the NDP Pension Critic introduced a private members bill in the last legislature that would have allowed seniors to withdraw up to 100 per cent of their locked-in pension funds. I strongly believe that this is legislation that needs to be reintroduced and acted upon by the legislature as soon as possible after the October 10th election.

Seniors want the right to access and control their own money, and deserve to have that option. People should not have to wait until age 90 to access the full amount of their pension funds, to limit access to 6.2 percent of principal, in an era when so much talk is being bandied about around choice for seniors, is simply ridiculous.


Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick and the federal government have already changed their laws to enable older adults to access some, or all, of their locked in pension, but in Ontario, only a select number of MPPs have the freedom to unlock their pensions. This is wrong. It isn’t fair, and is something I want to see changed.

Some people may question if a 25 year old understands the importance of this issue, but with my own parents approaching retirement age, I understand this issue not only from a political perspective but also from the personal perspective of my own family.

Allowing access to the principal in locked-in funds is the fair thing to do for Ontarians especially since a precedent was set in 1999 under the Conservative government with Bill 27 when 61 MPPs were permitted to do so.. For MPPs to give themselves the right to access that is denied to everyone else is wrong. I look forward to working in Queen’s Park to set it right.

Sincerely,
Stephen Maynard

NDP candidate
London-Fanshawe