无忧论坛

标题: 世界日报：退休福利计画恐引爆社会问题 [打印本页]

作者: Lescid 时间: 2011-6-20 07:34
标题: 世界日报：退休福利计画恐引爆社会问题
每个加拿大人，不论是属于公企还是私企，都应该享有descent退休金，而不仅仅是只是某些人。

改革CPP计划，让每个退休的人能生活在贫困线之上。

作者: eastking 时间: 2011-6-20 07:44
我觉得这个不公平，为什么公务员和大公司的人可以有退休计划，而我们中小公司的人却没有

作者: 车神 EVO X 时间: 2011-6-20 08:03
加拿大这个退休金和退休福利计划，极有可能是加拿大有史以来最大的庞氏诈骗案！！！
。
一旦加拿大输入性人口增长出现停顿，那么养老金将会入不敷出而破产！！

作者: 无忌哥哥 时间: 2011-6-20 08:53
俺脚着CPP计划的养老金并不高，个人投资储蓄是必须的。关键是政府工或者如Post，TTC之类的国营公司都有guaranty的养老金计划，这些成了他们的巨大负担，而且还得把这个负担转嫁到全体纳税人身上不公平。私营大公司有钱有好的养老金计划不好批评，钱是自己赚的想咋花咋花。

作者: 法官 时间: 2011-6-20 09:06

加拿大这个退休金和退休福利计划，极有可能是加拿大有史以来最大的庞氏诈骗案！！！
。
一旦加拿大输入性人口增长出现停顿，那么养老金将会入不敷出而破产！！
车神 EVO X 发表于 2011-6-20 09:03 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

NDP当政时建立了CPP. CPP设立之初只收收入的1.9%, 给当时退休的人用, 不是留着给交CPP的人用. 交CPP的人退休了, 由更年轻的人交CPP给他们用. 后来退休的人越来越多, 退休后领CPP的年头越来越长, CPP占收入的比例开始大幅上升, 现在占收入的9%, 还不够政府给退休的人发的! 今年大选NDP的一个要点是CPP供款加倍, 占收入的18%.

CPP说白了就是政府收的养老税, 你交了给别人花.说是加拿大有史以来最大的庞氏诈骗案, 也对, 收越来越多的新钱, 去还旧钱的窟窿. NDP几十年前干的蠢事终于资不抵债了.

作者: 法官 时间: 2011-6-20 09:10

每个加拿大人，不论是属于公企还是私企，都应该享有descent退休金，而不仅仅是只是某些人。

改革CPP计划，让每个退休的人能生活在贫困线之上。
BL666 发表于 2011-6-20 08:34 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

还可以有更美好的理想: 人人按需分配, 想住什么房子就住什么房子, 想吃什么就吃什么, 从来不缺钱!

问题是支持这么美好的理想, 钱从哪里来? 象NDP说的钱长在树上?

作者: 花草迷 时间: 2011-6-20 09:17
标题: 世界日报：退休福利计画恐引爆社会问题
本帖最后由花草迷于 2011-6-20 10:18 编辑

请51的编辑们查查字典，为什么一直将“计划”的“划”字写成“画”字？

作者: 橡皮鱼 时间: 2011-6-20 09:32

还可以有更美好的理想: 人人按需分配, 想住什么房子就住什么房子, 想吃什么就吃什么, 从来不缺钱!

问题是支持这么美好的理想, 钱从哪里来? 象NDP说的钱长在树上?
法官发表于 2011-6-20 10:10 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

看来加拿大也不应该由public health，也是大多数人出钱给少部分人看病。

看来加拿大也不应该有保险，理由同上....

看来世界上都不应该有保险，理由同上....

看来所有3rdparty避险机制都不应该存在，人类应该回到弱肉强食的地步....

以上是对法官大人的总结。望指正

作者: videogame 时间: 2011-6-20 11:14
标题: 世界日报：退休福利计画恐引爆社会问题

NDP当政时建立了CPP. CPP设立之初只收收入的1.9%, 给当时退休的人用, 不是留着给交CPP的人用. 交CPP的人退休了, 由更年轻的人交CPP给他们用. 后来退休的人越来越多, 退休后领CPP的年头越来越长, CPP占收入的比例开始大幅上升, 现在占收入的9%, 还不够政府给退休的人发的! 今年大选NDP的一个要点是CPP供款加倍, 占收入的18%.

CPP说白了就是政府收的养老税, 你交了给别人花.说是加拿大有史以来最大的庞氏诈骗案, 也对, 收越来越多的新钱, 去还旧钱的窟窿. NDP几十年前干的蠢事终于资不抵债了.
法官发表于 2011-6-20 10:06 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

都是NDP惹的祸，幸亏它没上台，如果让它执政，加拿大会得更遭。

作者: 车神 EVO X 时间: 2011-6-20 11:15

看来加拿大也不应该由public health，也是大多数人出钱给少部分人看病。

看来加拿大也不应该有保险，理由同上....

看来世界上都不应该有保险，理由同上....

看来所有3rdparty避险机制都不应该存在，人类应该回到弱肉强食的地步....

以上是对法官大人的总结。望指正
橡皮鱼发表于 2011-6-20 10:32 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

有误！！！
。
广大纳税人是希望自己付的税费，应该更公平地被利用，像PUBLIC HEALTH，EDUCATION这些。纳税人没有意见！
。
而不是被一部分有特权的人滥用！例如TTC，POSTAL WORKER这些垄断行业！！
。
很多正规大公司，都是通过员工个人购买，企业部分资助等形式进行退休计划安排的。当然，也是企业和员工个人自负盈亏的。
。
但，不是像某些垄断行业一样，是退休计划是GUARANTEED的。那么，万一计划到最后行不通，出现亏损怎么办（就像现在邮政工人一样）？？？向纳税人伸手要！！因为理论上讲，纳税可以占纳税人收入的百分之百！！现在才几个PERCENT，所以，这个GAME还可以持续玩很久很久！！直至破产为止！！！
。
你说3rd PARTY避险机制不应存在，那是BS，你现在买的汽车保险不就是3RD PARTY INSURANCE吗？！自己花自己的钱，光明正大！！！

作者: loneshepherd 时间: 2011-6-20 11:24

每个加拿大人，不论是属于公企还是私企，都应该享有descent退休金，而不仅仅是只是某些人。

改革CPP计划，让每个退休的人能生活在贫困线之上。
BL666 发表于 2011-6-20 08:34 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

You pay it, or somebody else pay it for you?

作者: loneshepherd 时间: 2011-6-20 11:25

我觉得这个不公平，为什么公务员和大公司的人可以有退休计划，而我们中小公司的人却没有
loveRwmtgb 发表于 2011-6-20 08:44 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

Most corporations stopped pension plans years ago. The only keep pension plan for elder workers.

作者: loneshepherd 时间: 2011-6-20 11:30
标题: 世界日报：退休福利计画恐引爆社会问题
本帖最后由 loneshepherd 于 2011-6-20 18:26 编辑

Pension Plan is like a " Sword of Damocles" hanging on the necks of (private or crown) corporations. There is no way for a business to run when there is huge uncertainty ahead: even unions know that. The unions just don't want to give up anything.

作者: loneshepherd 时间: 2011-6-20 11:32

看来加拿大也不应该由public health，也是大多数人出钱给少部分人看病。

看来加拿大也不应该有保险，理由同上....

看来世界上都不应该有保险，理由同上....

看来所有3rdparty避险机制都不应该存在，人类应该回到弱肉强食的地步....

以上是对法官大人的总结。望指正
橡皮鱼发表于 2011-6-20 10:32 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

Wrong. Private insurance is a different story. You pay the premium and get rewarded when unfortunate happens.

作者: 橡皮鱼 时间: 2011-6-20 11:41
标题: 世界日报：退休福利计画恐引爆社会问题
本帖最后由橡皮鱼于 2011-6-20 13:34 编辑

回复 10# 车神 EVO X

俺只是就“你交了给别人花.说是加拿大有史以来最大的庞氏诈骗案“这句话来做一个延伸。意思大家都明白。在人类社会里，这种“你交了给别人花”一定存在。否则就是无政府主义。至于只要有这些情况存在，就有官僚主义，浪费等等存在，无法避免。这就是代价。只是或多或少而已。

这个问题还有另外一面，08年financial crisis，就应该我这种tax payer bailout? 一个个CXO们脑满肠肥，还要我来bailout? 说起来这些钱还不是tax money，不是一样到那些已经很肥的人的口袋里去了。然后那些政客们开始大印钞票，造成的损失还不是我们来填补？嘿嘿，这个和你深恶痛绝的“浪费”有多少区别？什么liberal, ndp, PC，都不是好货色。哪个上台，都有人有好处。这不,pc上台了，打着减少公司税的名头，还不是肥了那种富人？你还真的当公司税少了，就会多雇人？BS,这才是这届政府最大的谎言呢。

作者: 橡皮鱼 时间: 2011-6-20 12:32
标题: 世界日报：退休福利计画恐引爆社会问题
本帖最后由橡皮鱼于 2011-6-20 13:39 编辑

回复 14# loneshepherd

I pay "premium" for CPP, and get rewarded when I retire and I WILL RETIRE, whereas unfortunate things don't necessarily happen to me. According to this, CPP is better than private insurance.

Further, as per private insurance company, I pay premium and the company use my and others' premium to generate profit as well as move some of the money to "fat cat" CEOs plus regular employees employed by the company. While, as per CPP, I pay premium, and the government use my premium and others' premium to fund retirees and pay salaries to government commissioners as well as regular employees employed by the government.

SO, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Not just kidding, but arguing. Don't be too RIGHT.

作者: 橡皮鱼 时间: 2011-6-20 12:50
回复 13# loneshepherd

I can agree partly with this post. Let's think further. Why are those define benefit plans unable to maintained? Oh, they are under funded and the companies have to contribute to them.

So why are they under funded? Because the funds lost money on the market.

So who caused them to lose money? Not the fund managers, not the unions, not the employees, BUT the suckers on Wall Street! Blame them if you want.

And who caused the financial disaster in 2008-2009? Those so called bankers, financial advisors, traders etc.

So what are they doing? Sucking blood from average Joes. They don't manufacture, invent, construct. They are using their smart brain to play games, number games! They are moving money from one's pocket to another. That's all they have been doing.

作者: zhen2005 时间: 2011-6-20 13:11

NDP当政时建立了CPP. CPP设立之初只收收入的1.9%, 给当时退休的人用, 不是留着给交CPP的人用. 交CPP的人退休了, 由更年轻的人交CPP给他们用. 后来退休的人越来越多, 退休后领CPP的年头越来越长, CPP占收入的比例开始大幅上升, 现在占收入的9%, 还不够政府给退休的人发的! 今年大选NDP的一个要点是CPP供款加倍, 占收入的18%.

CPP说白了就是政府收的养老税, 你交了给别人花.说是加拿大有史以来最大的庞氏诈骗案, 也对, 收越来越多的新钱, 去还旧钱的窟窿. NDP几十年前干的蠢事终于资不抵债了.
法官发表于 2011-6-20 10:06 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

I don't like NDP either, but NDP当政? Sorry for my ignorance, I know they just be offical opposition last month and just celebrated their 50 years anniversary yesterday. Have they ever in power and form federal government?

作者: hack2 时间: 2011-6-20 13:12

我觉得这个不公平，为什么公务员和大公司的人可以有退休计划，而我们中小公司的人却没有

这就象是美国的医疗保健计划，由的公司有，有的公司没有。和政府无关。

作者: zhen2005 时间: 2011-6-20 13:13
标题: 世界日报：退休福利计画恐引爆社会问题
本帖最后由 zhen2005 于 2011-6-20 14:21 编辑

回复车神 EVO X

俺只是就“你交了给别人花.说是加拿大有史以来最大的庞氏诈骗案“这句话来做一个延伸。意思大家都明白。在人类社会里，这种“你交了给别人花”一定存在。否则就是无政府主义。至于只要有这些情况存在，就有官僚主义，浪费等等存在，无法避免。这就是代价。只是或多或少而已。

这个问题还有另外一面，08年financial crisis，就应该我这种tax payer bailout? 一个个CXO们脑满肠肥，还要我来bailout? 说起来这些钱还不是tax money，不是一样到那些已经很肥的人的口袋里去了。然后那些政客们开始大印钞票，造成的损失还不是我们来填补？嘿嘿，这个和你深恶痛绝的“浪费”有多少区别？什么liberal, ndp, PC，都不是好货色。哪个上台，都有人有好处。这不,pc上台了，打着减少公司税的名头，还不是肥了那种富人？你还真的当公司税少了，就会多雇人？BS,这才是这届政府最大的谎言呢。
橡皮鱼发表于 2011-6-20 12:41 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

Very smart commend! Fair always relative not absolute.

Never expect some kinds of social system, a party or a politician give you fair that you dream. Be smart people, try your best to be one that enjoy priority, not one that be taken advantage.

作者: 橡皮鱼 时间: 2011-6-20 13:19

这就象是美国的医疗保健计划，由的公司有，有的公司没有。和政府无关。
hack2 发表于 2011-6-20 14:12 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

Some are funded by the government. I guess most people will admit, Canadian health system is better than that of USA.

作者: xiaofeiyu 时间: 2011-6-20 15:04
美国汽车公司破产或面临破产很大的原因是背负不起退休人员的福利，早改比破产以后再改好。

作者: 法官 时间: 2011-6-20 15:08
标题: 世界日报：退休福利计画恐引爆社会问题
本帖最后由法官于 2011-6-20 16:10 编辑

Very smart commend! Fair always relative not absolute.

Never expect some kinds of social system, a party or a politician give you fair that you dream. Be smart people, try your best to be one that enjoy priority, not one that be taken advantage.
zhen2005 发表于 2011-6-20 14:13 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

指望大政府把老百姓的钱都收走搞医疗福利, 退休福利, 住房福利, 教育福利...., 结果只能是先享受这些福利的人受益, 后享受这些福利的人吃亏. 这都是拿后面人的钱给前面人搞福利, 跟老鼠会一样.

CPP就是个例子. 最早交收入1.9%的退休人士和现在交收入9%的退休人士享受同样的CPP退休金(除去通货膨胀), 如果要保证以后退休人士拿的CPP不变, 交CPP的上班族还要多交钱.

还是小政府低税收, 让老百姓自己决定钱该怎么花. 如果你想多消费少存钱, 就别指望退休后不缺钱.

作者: loneshepherd 时间: 2011-6-20 15:14

回复 loneshepherd

I can agree partly with this post. Let's think further. Why are those define benefit plans unable to maintained? Oh, they are under funded and the companies have to contribute to them.

So why are they under funded? Because the funds lost money on the market.

So who caused them to lose money? Not the fund managers, not the unions, not the employees, BUT the suckers on Wall Street! Blame them if you want.

And who caused the financial disaster in 2008-2009? Those so called bankers, financial advisors, traders etc.

So what are they doing? Sucking blood from average Joes. They don't manufacture, invent, construct. They are using their smart brain to play games, number games! They are moving money from one's pocket to another. That's all they have been doing.
橡皮鱼发表于 2011-6-20 13:50 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

"Why are they underfunded?" Because they were underfunded on the first place (main reason), and because fund managers of these pension plan sucks.
I do not like Wall (or Bay) Street suckers as well, but you blamed the wrong guy in this case.

"They (Wall Street suckers) don't manufacture, invent, construct.": wrong. These suckers manufacture, invent and construct financial products. We can argue those products sucks, but remember the foundation of capitalism is capital, and these sucker plays key roles.

作者: loneshepherd 时间: 2011-6-20 15:14

回复 loneshepherd

I pay "premium" for CPP, and get rewarded when I retire and I WILL RETIRE, whereas unfortunate things don't necessarily happen to me. According to this, CPP is better than private insurance.

Further, as per private insurance company, I pay premium and the company use my and others' premium to generate profit as well as move some of the money to "fat cat" CEOs plus regular employees employed by the company. While, as per CPP, I pay premium, and the government use my premium and others' premium to fund retirees and pay salaries to government commissioners as well as regular employees employed by the government.

SO, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Not just kidding, but arguing. Don't be too RIGHT.
橡皮鱼发表于 2011-6-20 13:32 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

Will response later. Have to catch my train

作者: 橡皮鱼 时间: 2011-6-20 15:39
标题: 世界日报：退休福利计画恐引爆社会问题
本帖最后由橡皮鱼于 2011-6-20 16:46 编辑

"Why are they underfunded?" Because they were underfunded on the first place (main reason), and because fund managers of these pension plan sucks.
I do not like Wall (or Bay) Street suckers as well, but you blamed the wrong guy in this case.

"They (Wall Street suckers) don't manufacture, invent, construct.": wrong. These suckers manufacture, invent and construct financial products. We can argue those products sucks, but remember the foundation of capitalism is capital, and these sucker plays key roles.
loneshepherd 发表于 2011-6-20 16:14 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

You can call those things "products", I call them "games", they are merely playing games. and their irresponsibility caused major havoc all around the world. the foundation of capitalism is capital, but is it right for average Joes?

Moving money around does not create social wealth directly, like nor does the transportation industry or retail industry. But moving money around and make the society work more efficiently, and thus contribute indirectly to the wealth. Nowadays, the action of moving money around goes to such an extent that it permeates into daily life, enjoying far greater advantage over other industry. This is WRONG. The human society can not just work on virtual wealth, it is just numbers.

Most DB plans were not underfunded at the first sight. They are now underfunded because those guys drives everything up and down to make money, that is what they live up for. While you contribute to the plan, the money was/is largely eaten up by those bastards.

作者: 橡皮鱼 时间: 2011-6-20 15:51
回复 23# 法官

不论小政府还是大政府，只要政府存在你所说的问题就存在．你看看美国，想做小政府来着，现在怎么样？看看日本，失去的十年，嗨嗨．看看欧洲的大政府，有像希腊那样快倒闭的国家，也有像德国那样运行的还可以的国家．简单，而又直接．

作者: loneshepherd 时间: 2011-6-20 17:29

You can call those things "products", I call them "games", they are merely playing games. and their irresponsibility caused major havoc all around the world. ?the foundation of capitalism is capital, but is it right for average Joes?

Moving money around does not create social wealth directly, like nor does the transportation industry or retail industry. But moving money around and make the society work more efficiently, ?and thus contribute indirectly to the wealth. Nowadays, the action of moving money around goes to such an extent that it permeates into daily life, enjoying far greater advantage over other industry. This is WRONG. The human society can not just work on virtual wealth, it is just numbers.

Most DB plans were not underfunded at the first sight. They are now underfunded because those guys drives everything up and down to make money, that is what they live up for. While you contribute to the plan, the money was/is largely eaten up by those bastards.
橡皮鱼发表于 2011-6-20 16:39 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

?? ?You can call them "games" or whatever you want to call, but they are financial products which are critical to fund people's daily economic activities (imagine your mortgage without wall st suckers), ?and lifeline to ?entrepreneurs. A lot of the products are bad some are scam just like any other products.
I do believe that those wall street suckers are paid way too high and a big chunk of the "performance pay" is not proportional to performance. It is absolutely necessary to reform our financial market. But that is another subject.

I do not know how to respond to your second paragraph. I disagree with some points, and agree with the other points.

Most pension plans were underfunded because they were based wrong assumptions:
1. The assumption of annual return were too high;
2. The assumption of life?expectancy were too low.
Then you have fund management take a cut from already underfunded PPs, the outcome is obvious.

These kind of corporation PPs are absolutely unsustainable, they have to be in national scale. CPP is still ok, however even Social Security in USA faces a huge challenge.

This is also my response to your other post.

作者: loneshepherd 时间: 2011-6-20 17:35

回复法官

不论小政府还是大政府，只要政府存在你所说的问题就存在．你看看美国，想做小政府来着，现在怎么样？看看日本，失去的十年，嗨嗨．看看欧洲的大政府，有像希腊那样快倒闭的国家，也有像德国那样运行的还可以的国家．简单，而又直接．
橡皮鱼发表于 2011-6-20 16:51 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

德国的问题也不少。那山总是比这山高一点

至少现在看，你们批评最严厉的加拿大是西方主要工业国家中表现最好的。

作者: 橡皮鱼 时间: 2011-6-20 17:50

?? ?You can call them "games" or whatever you want to call, but they are financial products which are critical to fund people's daily economic activities (imagine your mortgage without wall st suckers), ?and lifeline to ?entrepreneurs. A lot of the products are bad some are scam just like any other products.
I do believe that those wall street suckers are paid way too high and a big chunk of the "performance pay" is not proportional to performance. It is absolutely necessary to reform our financial market. But that is another subject.

I do not know how to respond to your second paragraph. I disagree with some points, and agree with the other points.

Most pension plans were underfunded because they were based wrong assumptions:
1. The assumption of annual return were too high;
2. The assumption of life?expectancy were too low.
Then you have fund management take a cut from already underfunded PPs, the outcome is obvious.

These kind of corporation PPs are absolutely unsustainable, they have to be in national scale. CPP is still ok, however even Social Security in USA faces a huge challenge.

This is also my response to your other post.
loneshepherd 发表于 2011-6-20 18:29 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

Yes, Mortgages are good, daily loans are good, because they help pushing people forward. But is CDIC good? This is the direct culprit which caused trillions of dollars lost. I am not a fan of options either. Yes, when options came out, they were to alleviate risks, like people do covered calls, but what now? There is nothing wrong with capitalism, but when it went to some extremity, it is wrong. And Wall St has gone thus far.

Well, maybe we have gone too far on the topic, it is more of a left-or-right debate.

作者: 橡皮鱼 时间: 2011-6-20 17:51
回复 30# loneshepherd

加拿大在这场风波中表现最好恰恰是对金融市场更加严格的管理造成的，看看美国，他们所作的就是把自己的问题转嫁给别的国家。

作者: loneshepherd 时间: 2011-6-20 18:26

回复 loneshepherd

加拿大在这场风波中表现最好恰恰是对金融市场更加严格的管理造成的，看看美国，他们所作的就是把自己的问题转嫁给别的国家。
橡皮鱼发表于 2011-6-20 18:51 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

那你认为加拿大比德国好了?!

作者: loneshepherd 时间: 2011-6-20 18:27

Yes, Mortgages are good, daily loans are good, because they help pushing people forward. But is CDIC good? This is the direct culprit which caused trillions of dollars lost. I am not a fan of options either. Yes, when options came out, they were to alleviate risks, like people do covered calls, but what now? There is nothing wrong with capitalism, but when it went to some extremity, it is wrong. And Wall St has gone thus far.

Well, maybe we have gone too far on the topic, it is more of a left-or-right debate.
橡皮鱼发表于 2011-6-20 18:50 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

So they are products (good or bad) not games?!

作者: 西风纵 时间: 2011-6-20 19:15

有误！！！
。
广大纳税人是希望自己付的税费，应该更公平地被利用，像PUBLIC HEALTH，EDUCATION这些。纳税人没有意见！
。
而不是被一部分有特权的人滥用！例如TTC，POSTAL WORKER这些垄断行业！！
。
很多正规大公司，都是通过员工个人购买，企业部分资助等形式进行退休计划安排的。当然，也是企业和员工个人自负盈亏的。
。
但，不是像某些垄断行业一样，是退休计划是GUARANTEED的。那么，万一计划到最后行不通，出现亏损怎么办（就像现在邮政工人一样）？？？向纳税人伸手要！！因为理论上讲，纳税可以占纳税人收入的百分之百！！现在才几个PERCENT，所以，这个GAME还可以持续玩很久很久！！直至破产为止！！！
。
你说3rd PARTY避险机制不应存在，那是BS，你现在买的汽车保险不就是3RD PARTY INSURANCE吗？！自己花自己的钱，光明正大！！！
车神 EVO X 发表于 2011-6-20 12:15 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

:thumbu:

作者: 加加减减 时间: 2011-6-20 20:46

NDP当政时建立了CPP. CPP设立之初只收收入的1.9%, 给当时退休的人用, 不是留着给交CPP的人用. 交CPP的人退休了, 由更年轻的人交CPP给他们用. 后来退休的人越来越多, 退休后领CPP的年头越来越长, CPP占收入的比例开始大幅上升, 现在占收入的9%, 还不够政府给退休的人发的! 今年大选NDP的一个要点是CPP供款加倍, 占收入的18%.

CPP说白了就是政府收的养老税, 你交了给别人花.说是加拿大有史以来最大的庞氏诈骗案, 也对, 收越来越多的新钱, 去还旧钱的窟窿. NDP几十年前干的蠢事终于资不抵债了.
法官发表于 2011-6-20 10:06 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

就象中国的社保中的养老保险（比加拿大的更有过之而无不及）、美国的超级养老金一样，都面临着同样的问题，都象庞式诈骗！

作者: 实在人 时间: 2011-6-21 01:45
you can agree what? if you agree, then you agree. if you don't agree, then you don't agree. what do you mean you can agree? do you mean that you are able to agree? do you mean that you are going to agree? or do you just want to say that i would agree?

作者: loneshepherd 时间: 2011-6-21 09:54
标题: 世界日报：退休福利计画恐引爆社会问题
本帖最后由 loneshepherd 于 2011-6-21 11:49 编辑

you can agree what? if you agree, then you agree. if you don't agree, then you don't agree. what do you mean you can agree? do you mean that you are able to agree? do you mean that you are going to agree? or do you just want to say that i would agree?
实在人发表于 2011-6-21 02:45 http://bbs.51.ca/images/common/back.gif

Is this a rap

欢迎光临无忧论坛 (https://bbs.51.ca/)