Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Harper Shame And Hypocrisy
1 view
Skip to first unread message
NDP@35%
Apr 5, 2012, 2:57:17 PM4/5/12
to
Hahahahaha !! Still like your "stable, democratic, majority government", "Carr" ?
Rae has promised to reverse the 67 retirement age back to 65 if elected. Would that convince
you to vote Liberal next time around?
"Greg Carr" <gregca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:96a3eca9-6a0e-4a8b...@pg6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
..
OAS eligibility changes to 67 but Harper still gets his ‘retirement
allowance’ at 65
.By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – 19 hours ago..
... .
.In last week's budget, the Harper government delayed the age of
eligibility for Old Age Security recipients to 67.
It appears, however, our prime minister is not willing to do the same
for his retirement benefits - at least not yet.
All Canadian prime ministers who served at least four years in office
are given a $100,000/year allowance beginning at the age of 65.
That's $100,000 in addition to their already gold-plated pensions.
On Tuesday, the Liberals tried to introduce a sub-amendment to the
federal budget which would have raised the eligibility age of the
prime minister's allowance to 67.
It was defeated by the Conservative majority.
"If you're going to increase the Old Age Security to 67, then I would
have thought it would have been pretty easy for the Prime Minister to
say, well, we'll do the same thing for that," interim Liberal leader
Bob Rae told Global News.
"It's like a welfare program."
The Prime Minister's new director of communications, Andrew
MacDougall, told PostMedia News changes to MP pensions, including
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's retirement bonus allowance, are
pending in the coming months.
"There's additional changes the government is looking at that will be
part of a legislative package in the fall," he said.
"We're going to consider what they're calling the prime minister's
allowance in that package with all MPs and we look forward to the
opposition supporting changes to the pension regime for
Parliamentarians."
Facts about the allowance to former prime ministers:
- It was introduced in 1963 by former Liberal Prime Minister Lester
Pearson
- The cheques, paid monthly, start coming at age 65 and are for life
unless the person returns to the House of Commons or the Senate as a
sitting member
- Once the former prime minister dies, a designated 'survivor' will
receive one-half of the allowance each year.
- According to the Liberals, the benefit is derived from general
revenues, just like OAS
- Only two current prime minister's receive the allowance: Jean
Chretien and Brian Mulroney
- Here is the legislation:
48. (1) There shall be paid to every person who has held the office of
Prime Minister for four years an allowance beginning on the day on
which that person ceases to be a member or reaches sixty-five years of
age, whichever is the later, equal to two thirds of the annual salary
payable under the - Salaries Act to the Prime Minister as Prime
Minister on that day.
Rae has promised to reverse the 67 retirement age back to 65 if elected. Would that convince
you to vote Liberal next time around?
"Greg Carr" <gregca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:96a3eca9-6a0e-4a8b...@pg6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
..
OAS eligibility changes to 67 but Harper still gets his ‘retirement
allowance’ at 65
.By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – 19 hours ago..
... .
.In last week's budget, the Harper government delayed the age of
eligibility for Old Age Security recipients to 67.
It appears, however, our prime minister is not willing to do the same
for his retirement benefits - at least not yet.
All Canadian prime ministers who served at least four years in office
are given a $100,000/year allowance beginning at the age of 65.
That's $100,000 in addition to their already gold-plated pensions.
On Tuesday, the Liberals tried to introduce a sub-amendment to the
federal budget which would have raised the eligibility age of the
prime minister's allowance to 67.
It was defeated by the Conservative majority.
"If you're going to increase the Old Age Security to 67, then I would
have thought it would have been pretty easy for the Prime Minister to
say, well, we'll do the same thing for that," interim Liberal leader
Bob Rae told Global News.
"It's like a welfare program."
The Prime Minister's new director of communications, Andrew
MacDougall, told PostMedia News changes to MP pensions, including
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's retirement bonus allowance, are
pending in the coming months.
"There's additional changes the government is looking at that will be
part of a legislative package in the fall," he said.
"We're going to consider what they're calling the prime minister's
allowance in that package with all MPs and we look forward to the
opposition supporting changes to the pension regime for
Parliamentarians."
Facts about the allowance to former prime ministers:
- It was introduced in 1963 by former Liberal Prime Minister Lester
Pearson
- The cheques, paid monthly, start coming at age 65 and are for life
unless the person returns to the House of Commons or the Senate as a
sitting member
- Once the former prime minister dies, a designated 'survivor' will
receive one-half of the allowance each year.
- According to the Liberals, the benefit is derived from general
revenues, just like OAS
- Only two current prime minister's receive the allowance: Jean
Chretien and Brian Mulroney
- Here is the legislation:
48. (1) There shall be paid to every person who has held the office of
Prime Minister for four years an allowance beginning on the day on
which that person ceases to be a member or reaches sixty-five years of
age, whichever is the later, equal to two thirds of the annual salary
payable under the - Salaries Act to the Prime Minister as Prime
Minister on that day.
NDP@35%
Apr 5, 2012, 2:59:27 PM4/5/12
to
>>"simplicity" <stella...@live.ca> wrote in message
>>news:0860a930-5c04-4432-b942->>cf9002...@t8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com...
>>Criticizing unparallel generosity of MP's pension is one thing.
>>Linking it with OAS changes, which nota bene will take effect in some
>>10 years from now, is an intellectual dishonesty at best and dirty
>>trick propaganda at its worst.
>>
>>Besides, considering the amount of Harper's pension, chances are his
>>entire OAS will be clawed back anyway.
Give us all some details on "the amount of Harper's pension" and why the "entire amount would
be clawed back".
>>news:0860a930-5c04-4432-b942->>cf9002...@t8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com...
>>Criticizing unparallel generosity of MP's pension is one thing.
>>Linking it with OAS changes, which nota bene will take effect in some
>>10 years from now, is an intellectual dishonesty at best and dirty
>>trick propaganda at its worst.
>>
>>Besides, considering the amount of Harper's pension, chances are his
>>entire OAS will be clawed back anyway.
Give us all some details on "the amount of Harper's pension" and why the "entire amount would
be clawed back".
M.I. Wakefield
Apr 5, 2012, 3:29:24 PM4/5/12
to
"NDP@35%" wrote in message news:V3lfr.15581$dq4....@newsfe23.iad...
> Give us all some details on "the amount of Harper's pension" and why the
> "entire amount would be clawed back".
For 2012, the OAS clawback is $0.15 for every dollar of income over $69,562.
As the maximum annual OAS benefit is $6,481.44, anyone with an annual income
over $112,772 would have to repay their entire benefit.
If Harper retires in 2015, under the current rules, he would be entitled to
an MP's pension in excess of $200,000.
Even if the PM Allowance is rescinded, his MP's pension would still be
higher that the income that would result in a full OAS clawback.
> Give us all some details on "the amount of Harper's pension" and why the
> "entire amount would be clawed back".
As the maximum annual OAS benefit is $6,481.44, anyone with an annual income
over $112,772 would have to repay their entire benefit.
If Harper retires in 2015, under the current rules, he would be entitled to
an MP's pension in excess of $200,000.
Even if the PM Allowance is rescinded, his MP's pension would still be
higher that the income that would result in a full OAS clawback.
Greg Carr
Apr 5, 2012, 5:54:16 PM4/5/12
to
On Apr 5, 11:57 am, "NDP@35%" <NDP@3...@proud.ca> wrote:
> Hahahahaha !! Still like your "stable, democratic, majority government", "Carr" ?
>
> Rae has promised to reverse the 67 retirement age back to 65 if elected. Would that convince
> you to vote Liberal next time around?
>
> "Greg Carr" <gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Hahahahaha !! Still like your "stable, democratic, majority government", "Carr" ?
>
> Rae has promised to reverse the 67 retirement age back to 65 if elected. Would that convince
> you to vote Liberal next time around?
>
Cons@minority%
Apr 5, 2012, 10:04:38 PM4/5/12
to
On Apr 5, 11:57 am, "NDP@35%" <NDP@3...@proud.ca> wrote:
> Hahahahaha !! Still like your "stable, democratic, majority government", "Carr" ?
>
> Rae has promised to reverse the 67 retirement age back to 65 if elected. Would that convince
> you to vote Liberal next time around?
>> "Greg Carr" <gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> No
> Hahahahaha !! Still like your "stable, democratic, majority government", "Carr" ?
>
> Rae has promised to reverse the 67 retirement age back to 65 if elected. Would that convince
> you to vote Liberal next time around?
>> "Greg Carr" <gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Okay . . . . what about if you had to pay 100% of all your anti-psychotic medications due to
Harper's cuts to healthcare?
Greg Carr
Apr 6, 2012, 12:22:53 AM4/6/12
to
healthcare. I'm not voting for the BC Liberals so they just might cut
Pharmacare.
Cons@minority%
Apr 6, 2012, 3:41:53 PM4/6/12
to
>>"Greg Carr" <gregca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:de2f5c07-ffca-42c8-9d3e->>d1e4ce...@z5g2000pbu.googlegroups.com...
>>Harper has increased by billions the transfer to provinces for
>>healthcare. I'm not voting for the BC Liberals so they just might cut
>>Pharmacare.
Harper has NOT "increased by billtions the transfer to provinces for healthcare", ya stupid
>>healthcare. I'm not voting for the BC Liberals so they just might cut
>>Pharmacare.
rabbit. He's CAPPED them so severely than the provinces had to get together and try to figure
out what to do about his CUTS.
If you think that only stupid right wing readers like yourself ply these newsgroups, then stay
in your cocoon and live in ignorance.
But the rest of us, who don't have our heads up Harper's ass and do not have to take
anti-psychotic drugs, know better. And that's why the cry to get rid of Harper is so much
louder from the left than the right . . . .
Calling you an idiot would be an insult to all the stupid people.
M.I. Wakefield
Apr 6, 2012, 2:13:56 PM4/6/12
to
"Cons@minority%" wrote in message news:uVFfr.5765$ie6....@newsfe14.iad...
Snip!
> Harper has NOT "increased by billtions the transfer to provinces for
> healthcare", ya stupid rabbit. He's CAPPED them so severely than the
> provinces had to get together and try to figure out what to do about his
> CUTS.
Capped at [GDP growth + Inflation], but never less than 3%, starting in
2018.
Meanwhile, Dalton McGuinty plans to limit health-care spending increases to
2.1% for the next three years at a time when Federal funding is increasing
at 6% a year.
Snip!
> Harper has NOT "increased by billtions the transfer to provinces for
> healthcare", ya stupid rabbit. He's CAPPED them so severely than the
> provinces had to get together and try to figure out what to do about his
> CUTS.
2018.
Meanwhile, Dalton McGuinty plans to limit health-care spending increases to
2.1% for the next three years at a time when Federal funding is increasing
at 6% a year.
Cons@minority%
Apr 6, 2012, 4:58:33 PM4/6/12
to
> "Cons@minority%" wrote in message news:uVFfr.5765$ie6....@newsfe14.iad...
> Snip!
>
>> Harper has NOT "increased by billtions the transfer to provinces for healthcare", ya stupid
>> rabbit. He's CAPPED them so severely than the provinces had to get together and try to
>> figure out what to do about his CUTS.
Kim Dobranski posting as "M.I. Wakefield" <none@present> wrote in message
> Snip!
>
>> Harper has NOT "increased by billtions the transfer to provinces for healthcare", ya stupid
>> rabbit. He's CAPPED them so severely than the provinces had to get together and try to
>> figure out what to do about his CUTS.
news:CnGfr.21452$rT3....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> Capped at [GDP growth + Inflation], but never less than 3%, starting in 2018.
_____________________
December 19, 2011
Provinces balk at cuts in health-care funding
Ottawa warns future spending to be linked to economic growth
VICTORIA — Ottawa's decision to throttle health-care funding to Canadian provinces and
territories will lead to cutbacks in service and threaten the future of the country's universal
health care system, the finance ministers from several provinces said Monday.
__________________________________
> Meanwhile, Dalton McGuinty plans to limit health-care spending increases to 2.1% for the next
> three years at a time when Federal funding is increasing at 6% a year.
jets with no engines.
0 new messages