This Old Economist: Jim Flaherty’s idea is off course PT 2

As I’ve said in the past, anyone can be an economist.

Even if you just have a library card, you can enter the ranks.

But as your first move, don’t propose a new pension plan like Canada’s Finance Minister Jim Flatulence did recently.


["Count my fingers. Many need to save twice as much."]

Sure, one might think he’s just thinking of others, e.g., the self employed or those who work for small employers. But is he?

Two paragraphs in a recent news article make me think otherwise.

The first:

“Officials will continue to study various CPP options (The Canada Pension Plan is in really big trouble.) - including higher regular contributions to the mandatory retirement fund - before reconvening on the issue in June.” (Flaherty touts pensions, Dec. 21, London Free Press)

This says to me that Flaherty would rather get busy and help a few people by starting up a new pension program than help many other people - along with the aforementioned ‘few’ - by simply fine-tuning the already up-and-running CPP.

Jim, just ask people to increase their level of CPP contributions. They levels are too low. Have been for a long time!

Don’t propose another round of studies, Jim. You already know people aren’t saving enough for retirement. (Really. How many more reports or studies do you need to read, Jim?)

Just take the small hit in the polls for the sake of doing the right thing and move on.

But Jim likely won’t, based on what he says.

“We are all concerned about a fragile economic recovery... so there is concern about not putting more burdens on employers right now.”

When would be the best time to do the right thing? Now.

More burdens on employers? They’ve had a break for years. So have many employees if they haven't been saving enough for retirement. That’s one of the main reasons the CPP is suffering.

Get with it, man. Be tough.

By the way the PRPP is a Stup - rpp - id idea.

***

See Jim Flaherty’s idea is off course PT 1 here.

.