The Ontario government's proposal to supplement the Canada Pension Plan with its own compulsory pension plan is based on a series of faulty assumptions.
In Alberta, almost twice as many workers in the government sector possessed defined benefit pension plans in 2011 when compared with private sector employees. That might explain why so many government employees unions, from the Alberta Union of Public Employees to the United Nurses of Alberta, vociferously oppose modest pension reforms proposed by Finance Minister Doug Horner.
One benefit of column writing is the chance for feedback from readers, be they fans, critics or the merely curious. Responses arrive that reflect the rainbow of human emotion from cheery agreement to annoyance to the equivalent of typed-out road rage.
Much of what I (and my colleagues) do is analyze how politicians spend tax dollars and how governments affect our lives in multiple ways. As a result, any report or column that recommends a change to the status quo is sure to touch someones interest. Predictably, that touches a nerve and sets off a reaction.
The tone and language used by Professor Rhys Kesselman in his criticism of our recent study on the CPP and RRSPs is a far cry from the professionalism and decorum one would expect from a distinguished economist and holder of a Canada Research Chair. Rather than stick to debating the facts, Professor Kesselman stoops to innuendoes and school yard taunts to disparage our work. Reasonable people should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.