NEW LAWSUIT ?????

ron yes this does help it tells me im way off thinking that were paying a higher rate as it seems we may ore at least will be in in the neer future.

thanks a lot buds it is appriciated

propat

Check this out not sure if it helps. More BOHICA.

PSPP – PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION PLAN

Contribution rate change
Contribution rates will increase beginning in January 2013 for all active pension plan members of the public service pension plan, Regular Force members of the Canadian Forces pension plan, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension plan.
Legislation amendments, if enacted in Parliament, will allow public service pension plan member contribution rates to gradually increase over time to an employer:employee cost-sharing ratio of 50:50. The contribution rates for Regular Force members of the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension plans will also increase by a comparable amount.
Increasing contribution rates ensures that pension plan members and the Government of Canada, as employer, contribute to the pension plans in a more balanced way.

it seems to me public service unions are still linked to cpp thus paying lower primiums and having the bridge effect that pays them their full pention till 65 and a ruduced pention after.since we have a seperate pention now that is de-linked from cpp we are paying higher primiums but still have the bridge effect.

can anyone confirm this ore correct this statment anyone im just trying to get these ducks in a row so to speek?

propat

hey k9 that was a good read but not exactly what i was getting at.if you follow the timeline of events we went from getting lower primiums on our cpp and military pention by linking them in a trade for a lower military pention when we started to collect cpp.then they were de-linked the cpp and military primiums went up but we still get our army pentions redused when we start to collect cpp.the legislative theft i was trying to get at is the cpp deduction not the surplus even though i think thats a crock as well.

thanks for your input
propat

Propat, I don't think you will like the answers I will give you.
Best thing would be to read all the Supreme Court of Canada Judgment in this case.
English: http://csc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12778/index.do
French: http://csc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/12778/index.do

Was the GOC in their rights, yes. The surplus went on the debt deficit, so it was paid for all Canadians. Those surplus were actuarial, so just money on paper and the people had no rights on the surplus.
If the economy was bad, and they were in red, the Treasure Board would borrow to pay the pensions and the debt would go up but they would'nt stop paying the pensions.
After 2000, the new law was in effect and the GOC started to give less and charge more till 2004. In 2004 it was up to the Treasure Board to administer how much everyone has to pay, so, Between 2001 and 2004, the government relied on Bill C-78 to debit over $28 billion from the Superannuation Accounts.

You have to diferienciate the context of private sector pension plans. In this appeal, the Court considered the pension plan surpluses in the context of statutory, public sector pension plans.

The Courts says that The Superannuation Accounts are no more than accounting records designed to track the operation of the Plans and to estimate the government’s future pension liabilities. They have liabilities to pay even if the account is empty, they handle the Budgets, the debt and everything else for us Canadians, it is in a way normal to pay back the debt the same way they higher the debt when in nead.

For me, after reading the SCC Judgment, it is normal.

Here is what is the most important:"Contributing employees can claim no continuing property interest in these amounts. In exchange for their contributions, and with each year of pensionable service, employees gain a legal entitlement to a future benefit. That is the nature of this defined benefit plan. "

That is the most of it,

Yours to digest an read and have your own toughts about,

Patrick.

PS: sorry that it is so long.

here is another site i found some interesting info http://pensionetavantages-pensionandbenefits.gc.ca/rtr/evnvie-lfevnt/av65-rch65-eng.html#a1

ron yes but i think prior to 2000 they were unable.wow was it really on the news today.

propat

well saber its been a while but i just found one similar to the ones i was looking at.http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pen/pa-ap/cfsaa-lprfcm-eng.asp

thanks sabre

#6 and 7 funny you mention this because it was in the news today...surplusses stayed in the fund, and for 7 the ruling in court was that the GOC has all the right to remove any surplusses without recourse. If you recall, I believe it was the first year the Liberals "balanced" the budget? They used the surplusses out of Public Service, Military and RCMP pensions. Then they screwed all new vets with the NVC, once they raped and pillaged the pension funds.

Wow. That's a lot of info to research, not really "general knowledge". If you would post the links you were looking at, I'll take a look to see if I interpret them the same way you have.
Sabrelove

i just have a few questins i hope some can answer them as the answers i have found dont seem right.

1.did public service unions accept the link of their pentions to cpp in a voteing prosses to get lower pention and cpp priemiums but lower pentions do to the bridge effect?

2.were the same changes made to our pention in 1965 becouse of this?

3.were we given a vote on this ore even any thurough consultation?

4.in april 1st 2000 was our pention de-linked leading to increases in both our pention primiums and cpp primiums?

5.when the pentions were de-linked did they get rid of the bridge effect?

6.did pention surpulsses stay in our pention fund prior to 2000?

7.did the goc come up with a way of extracting surpluses from our pention fund in 2000.

8.did the goc come up with a way of extracting these surplusses becouse they knew their would be a lot more surplus given the increas in rates while still maintaining the bride effect?

everything i have come up with looks like legislated theft but i would really like some more input and oppinions as this really doesnt look right to me.

allways question athority

propat