Follow Us

FacebookTwitterRSSStumble UponDigg

Tags: , , ,

Pension plan St. John New Brunswick’s most pressing issue

October 11, 2012

TORONTO, ON, Oct. 11, 1202/ Troy Media/ – It appears that the City of Saint John, New Brunswick, has successfully put aside dealing with its most pressing issue, that of the employee pension plan.

It has been entertaining to watch the events surrounding the pension plan and the lack of leadership to do anything about the crisis. Amazingly, it was only a few months ago that pensions were front and centre in the municipal election. Voters clearly marked their ballot for pension reform based on the promises made by the candidates.

How frail those promises were.

There are very dark and sinister forces acting to prevent the reforms necessary to the pension plan. These forces are much bigger than anyone understands. It is not pension reform in Saint John that is being debated, but rather, pension reform for the whole of the public sector in Canada. Pensions have driven all Canadians into a multi billion dollar debt, at all levels of government, solely for the benefit of those politically connected through public sector unions.

The private sector unions have moved their members into more sustainable pensions. The reality is that if the corporation they work for becomes bankrupt, the pensions too, become insolvent.

For some reason, the same rules do not apply in the public sector, and, as the expression goes, “cities can’t go bankrupt . . . they can always raise taxes”.

Now, the reality of pensions in Canada is that the corporate world has moved to reform the extinct defined benefit pension plan. It have been replaced throughout the financial services sector, as RBC, Manulife, Sunlife, Standard Life, and Laurentian Bank no longer see defined benefit pensions as being sustainable.

They have been reformed everywhere else too. The last holdouts for reform were Air Canada and the auto industry and they too have moved to hybrid pension plans.

Now in Canada, there are only 1.6 million gold-plated pension members left in the private sector. However, in the public sector, there are still 3.2 plan million members receiving these inequitable pensions. The only problem is that 80 per cent of Canada’s workers are in the private sector. The public sector plans have accumulated $800 billion assets but are still $300 billion short of funding the promises they made. By contrast, Canadians have saved only $750 billion in RRSP’s.

During the election it was clear what was needed. End the defined benefit plan that offers a guaranteed payout for life to city employees and replace it with the kind taxpayers have, a defined contribution plan. If there are shortfalls in the future, the employees have to share the pain and it does not fall fully onto the backs of taxpayers.

Currently, pensions need 7 to 12 per cent rates of return in order to get them to health. It will not happen this year, adding tens of millions of shortfall into the city pension plan by year end.

The reality is simple. These pensions are bust, and the longer we wait to reform them, the more money that falls onto the backs of the taxpayers.

Recently, the City of Waterloo created the Citizen’s Budget Task Force and they reported that:

“There are strong indications that the current pension funding will no longer be adequate to support early retirements, inflation adjustments and low contributions by employees. We consider the continuation of a defined-benefit plan too high-risk to taxpayers for our City to ignore.”

Waterloo has exactly the same type of plan that Saint John has.

The current plan is unfair at many different levels because they create a gap between those with public sector pensions, and the taxpayers who will have to fund them. In other words, the public sector employees are the haves, and the private sector employees, who pay for these pensions, are the have nots.

Currently there are an estimated 800 employees working for the city. When we consider that contributions are based on the salaries of the current workers, we can calculate the total shortfall per employee at $250,000 each. Employees have already earned a good wage for working for the city and now they want to extract another $250,000 each in “back pay”

The current plan in Saint John is under funded by over $200 million based on recent estimates by the mayor. This is money will have to be paid for by raising taxes, cutting services and borrowing more money. That is the direct cost of the shortfall.

Then there are the indirect costs. This is money being diverted away from service and projects that would benefit all the citizens of Saint John. Imagine how far $200 million would go towards fixing the city’s infrastructure or helping the disadvantaged.

A huge intergenerational unfairness exists in these plans. The city employees of today will leave a burden to the taxpayers of the next generation. This burden will be seen in the money diverted away from the essential building blocks of the community. The result will be higher taxes and an increased debt load, that are not only unsustainable, but also, unaffordable.

The system is broken, and the new “Dutch Model” of defined benefits will not fix it. Recent headlines on the Dutch pension system show it is badly in crisis, no different from defined benefit pensions anywhere else.

One anomaly of the province’s “reform” was the refusal by the government to raise retirement ages. They said it was not necessary and that city workers can continue to retire at an average age of 58 but the age would be moved to 65 gradually over the next 40 years. The Dutch system has found it necessary to move their retirement age to 67 by 2023.

As much as we all would like to live a life of luxury in our golden years, for most of us it won’t happen. The average Canadian retires at age 65 with $60,000 in their RRSP. They can’t afford perpetual tax increases and service cuts simply to fund city workers retirement at age 58 and earning lifetime pension incomes in the million dollar range. Its time that the council stands up for its citizens and fix the problems in front of you before its too late.

Bill Tufts is Founder of Fair Pensions For All (FPFA) an organization advocating for pension reform in Canada.

This column is FREE to use on your websites or in your publications. However, Troy Media, with a link to its web site, MUST be credited.

Looking for original editorial content for your publication or website? Visit Troy Media Marketplace

2 comments
bsteelgolfs
bsteelgolfs

Mr Tufts, Reform means to improve. Eliminating is not reform, unless that makes for an improvement.

As you rightly point out, the average Canadian retires with a mere $60,000 in their RRSP. Obviously, this is an issue that requires reform. Even CD Howe accepted that the PRPP proposal makes such an insignificant difference that it cannot be considered 'reform.' 

As we have seen with the gradual development from a pay-as-you-go scheme to a fully-funded plan (already fully funded for 17 years), this is a plan which is the meat of most peoples' retirement funding. Clearly it is a good step, but not enough.

Public Sector workers and the fortunate private sector workers who have defined benefit pension plans are the Canadians that have security in their retirement. This is because they pay into the plan every week and adjust their payments in order to maintain the necessary benefits to retire with security. It is a model that works well and a model that we all should be able to access.

We need to build on this successful model and have all Canadians have access to a defined benefit pension plan in addition to the CPP defined benefit pension plan, paid for from their compensation. Obviously, the employer portion of any pension plan is a part of the employee compensation.

What you are proposing benefits only one sector of society - the financial industry, which makes billions annually from RRSP savings. Savings should be for the workers, not for the banks.

St John did not put aside reform, they just agreed (along with Cambridge and all other reasoning jurisdictions) that your proposal is a major step backwards, not reform. We need to deal with the retirement funding issues in Canada or the government will be picking up the cost. Your organisation is a detriment to this goal. The deliberate mis-naming of your organisation is typical of your deceit.

TerryCereno
TerryCereno

Dark and sinister forces! Really. You are starting to sound desperate, Bill. But it has nothing to do with monsters and boogiermen.

It has to do wiith your regressive arguments that do not hold water in the real world.

Pensions are funded from employee compensation. The payments are made from the pension fund alone.

DB plans are known to be better, more efficient and more effective than the alternate models. CPP is the lone pension saving for vast numbers of Canadians. Can you imagine the mess we would be in without CPP?

FPFA has no problem using false formulea to make comments such as the $250k comment above (using formula for corporate plans)

If you want to see what type of organisation FPFA is a and what level they will stoop to in order to forward their anti-taxes base (for that is what this is about), google ' bill tufts jim leech OTPP' to see the OTPP CEOs response to Tufts' many falsehoods.

He continues his legacy with this article. Dark and sinister forces indeed!