Life Health Professional forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

ORPP development reveals government’s commitment

Notify me of new replies via email
Life Health Professional | 08 Oct 2015, 03:59 PM Agree 0
The Ontario government is steaming ahead with its ORPP implementation, bringing on an expert advisor to lead the charge
  • Jule | 08 Oct 2015, 04:22 PM Agree 0
    I currently work for a boss that is very stingy with his raises. If he has to pay towards this, I will see no further raises. I will then have to pay $788 a year toward my pension but I will only be working another 10 - 15 years which means I won't qualify. I'm not for this at all. I would rather see the energy put into benefits for all of Ontarians as a lot of us do not have drug or dental coverage.
  • Mark | 08 Oct 2015, 04:29 PM Agree 0
    Just another way for this provincial Liberal government to mismanage our finances and ensure that fewer people are hired and more businesses don't expand in Ontario. Another loss for Wynne that we have to pay for.
  • Paul P | 08 Oct 2015, 04:29 PM Agree 0
    what qualifications does he have to advise on the ORPP, and the article seemed mainly to do with the auto sector which will likely not be affected by the ORPP, since they have defined benefit programs and are exempt, I have one full time staff member to whom I contribute 6% of earnings to a RRSP on her behalf, I should be exempt since my contribution is 3 X that of the ORPP, but since it is not Defined benefit, I will have to either continue and kick in an additional 2% of earnings which she may not be able to collect based on the time issue, with that do I then reduce my contribution by 2% or in some cases I have heard that employers will cancel their own plans and save the money. The premise is a good idea however if an employer is meeting or exceeding this mandate they should be exempt from what is being viewed as another payroll tax
  • G G | 09 Oct 2015, 08:47 AM Agree 0
    Did your staff write this article or simply copy an Ontario Government press release? " support the government's commitment to simple, reliable and cost-effective..." When has this government succeeded with ANYTHING that was simple, reliable and/or cost-effective?!
    The ORPP will be seen as one more payroll tax by smaller businesses and many employees face losing health and dental plans, as business owners must allocate limited resources across to their staff.

    Notice that the Province feels the need to mandate retirement saving for it's residents, to ensure we have save more, while the Federal Liberal candidate pledges to reduce TFSA contribution room, cancel income-splitting programs, and allow more RRSP withdrawals to fund home purchases, all of which REDUCE the ability of hardworking people to look after themselves!!

    Thank goodness we self-employed consultants are exempt ( for now?! ).

  • | 09 Oct 2015, 11:07 AM Agree 0
    The ORPP in its present proposed format will (a) cost more to employers, many of whom are subsisting already; (b) cost employees more and more as time goes on akin to the CPP; (c) encourage businesses to look at other provinces before Ontario to invest in; and (d) remove the freedom of choice regarding how and where to invest from employees and employers alike. This sounds more like a narcissistic desire to leave a legacy whether it is ultimately beneficial or not.
  • John A | 09 Oct 2015, 02:31 PM Agree 0
    I agree there is a problem but Pensions are not the solution. The government is the only organization that uses Defined Benefits plans, all other business see the problems associated with it, and do not implement these types of plans any more. The other problem with pensions, is that it leaves all proceeds to other pensioners (upon death of the last deceased) instead of the families who contributed to it in the first place. I want my money to go to my family and future generations. I have run the numbers people could get 1.5 -2 times more income in retirement if invested conservatively. The government could change the Locked in Retirement Account (LIRA) slightly to use a system already in place to save for retirement and save alot of tax dollars creating a new one. Why should business owners have to pay for their employees poor planning and spending habits anyway?
  • Georgetown Guy | 14 Oct 2015, 07:25 PM Agree 0
    This is just another tactic to get more people on the government payroll, since government officials get paid a higher wage for supervising more people under these type of make-work projects. They could simply make the requirement mandatory and leave it at that... but no-o-o--o-o they also have to run the show by themselves... a clear signal of a make-work program. The insurance industry already has the mechanisms in place to provide Defined Benefit plans for those employers who want it for their employees... which would actually pay-out some kind of a pension for even the most early of contributors. Clearly this is not a case for providing protection for consumers. The better option is to utilize a financial literacy campaign to employees to save more for their retirement. All the financial tools that are needed for retirement income already exists in spades, so what is required is stronger encouragement for people to make financial planning a higher priority. It is NOT the role of the government to dictate common sense and place the pressure of added payroll taxes on both the employer and the employee. Using themselves as both governance and as provider is a clear conflict of interest. What's next? Will we have the police create laws, so they can generate income for the municipalities through more 'creative' measures of fines? This initiative will cripple our economy, since it's the small business owner who contributes the most to our economy, and they are the ones who will suffer the most. This is a REALLY bad idea on so many levels.
Post a reply