17

MPs’ pension fund swelled by 10 per cent during recession

As taxpayers saw their RRSPs and pensions tank


 

The MPs pension fund grew enviably during the financial meltdown because its interest rate is set by regulation and backed by taxpayers, according to the Canadian Press. Over the 2008-09 fiscal year, the fund earned a quarterly interest rate of 2.5 per cent, adding $53.8 million to its half-billion-dollar value; in the same year, private pension plans experienced a 21 per cent loss of value.

Winnipeg Free Press


 
Filed under:

MPs’ pension fund swelled by 10 per cent during recession

  1. I bet they don't have a deductible taken off their paycheck every week!

  2. Talk about 'conflict of interest'. They get to feather their own nests.
    They can get a pension(indexed) of $27,000 after only 6 years. I worked for 30 years and get only $25,000(not indexed). Pretty sweet deal for them bottom feeders.

  3. Talk about 'conflict of interest'. They get to feather their own nests.
    They can get a pension(indexed) of $27,000 after only 6 years. I worked for 30 years and get only $25,000(not indexed). Pretty sweet deal for them bottom feeders.

    • And not only that, isn't some 20% of their pay tax free?

  4. I try not to pay attention to this S**t ….and I don't bother to vote anymore…I NEVER thought I would say that!!

  5. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could explain this to me or point me in the direction of a good explanation. "Its interest rate is set by regulation" — I don't know what this means.

    • It means exactly what it says, I'm afraid.

      The relevant Act seems to be the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. I say seems to be because the thing is frickin' mess. All the mucking about they did so that the Reform MPs could opt out.. and then later re-revised so that they could opt back in once they realized that their principles weren't nearly as important as they'd have had us believe, have made the Act a dogs breakfast.

      However, from a reasonably quick scan, I think the important part is found near the bottom where it says:
      64. (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations
      (a) prescribing, for the purposes of paragraph 5(1)(b) and 28(1)(b), the rates of interest, the manner of calculating interest and the times at which interest shall be credited to the Retiring Allowances Account and the Compensation Arrangements Account;
      (b) prescribing, for the purposes of sections 11 and 33 and subsection 63(2), the rates of interest and the manner of calculating interest;

      Unfortunately, I have absolutely no clue how one would go about finding the Governor in Council's regulations to see what that rate actually is.

      • Thank you. I would not have guessed that my ideological foe would be the one to come to my rescue.

        I'm not sure what is being referred to as "interest". If it is meaning the payout from the fund — the linked article states that "there is no actual money in the fund" (are the MPs not putting money in?) — is it really interest or just another expense to the taxpayer?

        • It must be the payouts, because you can't regulate the growth on the underlyingcapital .

          The regulations should be available thehttp://www.canlii.ca version of the Act.

          • Right. But if there is no fund and no investments, is it not a gross misnomer to call the payments "interest"? It's just another public expense, and should be called something like "deferred salary".

          • Well, I suppose if you go back to the root meanings of interest — that is the MPs pay into the plan, and in return for not having that money immediately, they get a larger amount back later.. it's technically interest, even if the plan isn't stored in a fund or anything.

            After all, if I were to get bridge financing from you to flip a house, the extra that I agree to pay back is interest, just as if you were to have invested the money in some sort of regular fund.

  6. Are they even paying in? The article states that no money is going into the plan.

    • The Act seems to say that they have to be contributing to the plan.. it's just that the plan doesn't have a fund. My guess is it gets returned to the general revenues pool.

      • So, if I am to understand this correctly, for every dollar an MP defers until retirement, the taxpayer must give him an additional 2.5% every quarter times the inflation rate?

  7. I spent 20 years in the military from 18 to 38 years old.Served in Korea for one year spent many months away from my family over the remaining 19 years.Because of this I left after 20 years.Because i was under the age of 43 and had not completed 25 years they penalized my pension by 25%.In essence I received a 15 year pension.Today I am an old man in my 80s after all the years of cost of living increases my pension is less than $800 per month .It seems they have no trouble fixing thier own pension raises. I would be delighted just to have one 10% raise on what I get.Where are all those MPs who are more concerned about a Taliban detainee than old veterans like me.They are really the worst hypocrites in the world >I would hope one of your reporters would run with this and make it a headline story for us old guys who have been shot at in anger but not enough for our government to review this unfairness Please bring this to the attention of all Canadians in a feature story and question all MPs how they can show their faces in public with this injustice that has gone on for 60 years.This was age discrimination which they always preach is against the Charter

  8. Taxpayers love to carp about politician's salaries & pensions. Instead of complaining why don't they get on the gravy train by running for public office, or are they too lazy. Political parties are always on the lookout for people to run for office but I can tell you from personal experience the individuals prepared to put themselves out there are few and far between. Get involved people.

Sign in to comment.