Suchergebnisse

A certain segment of the Canadian population is at risk of being ill-prepared for retirement. These people will likely not have enough pension income when they retire to maintain their current lifestyle. It sounds like a problem that calls for urgent government action. Only, these people are not underprivileged or lowincome earners. They are middle- and higher-income earners who lack an employer-provided pension, but presumably have the capacity to save for retirement on their own. Whether we see the fact that many of them do not as a problem for government to solve depends entirely on our view of the role of government. This, ultimately, is what the current discussions about reforming the Canada Pension Plan, boil down to. The trend in the incomes of the elderly is generally positive: compared to the 1970s, retirees are living far more comfortably, with incomes overall showing no obvious signs of distress. And data show that Canadians earning low incomes will be able to largely maintain their current earnings upon retirement, relying on the Canada Pension Plan and other public supports. Those Canadians earning mid-range and higher incomes who also enjoy an employer-provided pension, such as public-service workers, are also well-positioned to be able to largely maintain their working-age lifestyles after retirement. Meanwhile, there is no obvious evidence that the number of workers with employment-related pensions will decline in the future; pension coverage among young workers has been increasing, as has the proportion of workers in the public sector. Expanding the CPP — whether it is using the plan recently proposed by P.E.I., the "wedge" proposal offered by economist Michael Wolfson, or simply doubling the maximum pensionable-earnings room allowed for CPP contributions — would have the largest impact on relatively comfortable workers who are not saving adequately for retirement. In effect, it would force them to save more. But that is not without risks. On a practical level, simply increasing CPP contributions makes the investment decisions of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board that much more liable for the retirement fate of Canadians. But it also promulgates a philosophy in which the federal government plays an ever-larger role, moving further into parts of our lives that have traditionally been considered areas of personal responsibility. That said, decisions about retirement savings are complicated and irreversible, yet critically important. There will inevitably be at least some people who make poor choices. Whether leaving relatively advantaged workers to suffer the consequences of their own investment decisions, or whether we require government intervention to protect them with an expanded CPP, hinges very much on just how paternalistic we expect our policy-makers to be.

Dans cet article, nous analysons les mesures incitatives à la retraite imposées par le régime de retraite public au Canada. Une série de stimulants illustrent les diverses composantes du régime de retraite qui motivent les Canadiens âgés à continuer de travailler ou qui, au contraire, les dissuadent de le faire. Nous montrons d'abord que les mesures de dissuasion les plus importantes sont reliées aux prestations fondées sur le revenu du Supplément de revenu garanti, qui, interagissant avec le Régime de pensions du Canada/Régime de rentes du Québec et avec le revenu gagné, fait que, pour les moins nantis, le choix de continuer à travailler est moins rentable sur le plan financier. Ensuite, nous illustrons comment diverses réformes des politiques pourraient atténuer certains aspects du problème des mesures incitatives, et éliminer partiellement les barrières qui démotivent les Canadiens âgés de continuer à participer au marché du travail.

On Aug. 15, 2021, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau had his request to dissolve Parliament approved, triggering Canada's 44th federal election. On Aug. 16, 2021, the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) released their full platform. In that election platform, the CPC promise to convert the Childcare Expense Deduction (CCED) into a refundable tax credit (CPC 2021, 23). In releasing that platform, the CPC have also publicly stated that they would cancel the existing signed childcare agreements that expand childcare supply and limit childcare fees (Tasker 2021). This note examines the proposed benefit schedule of the refundable tax credit and what it would mean for childcare affordability.

On Aug. 15, 2021, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau had his request to dissolve Parliament approved, triggering Canada's 44th federal election. On Aug. 16, 2021, the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) released their full platform. In that election platform, the CPC promise to convert the Childcare Expense Deduction (CCED) into a refundable tax credit (CPC 2021, 23). In releasing that platform, the CPC have also publicly stated that they would cancel the existing signed childcare agreements that expand childcare supply and limit childcare fees (Tasker 2021). This note examines the proposed benefit schedule of the refundable tax credit and what it would mean for childcare affordability.