# PENSION CONTRIBUTION RATES 2016



## CountDC (18 Dec 2015)

CANFORGEN 221/15 CMP 100/15 111922Z DEC 15
PENSION CONTRIBUTION RATES FOR MEMBERS OF THE PART I CAF PENSION PLAN (FULL TIME) FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2016
UNCLASSIFIED

REFS: A. CANFORGEN 238/12 CMP 113/12 121812Z DEC 12 
B. CANFORGEN 250/12 CMP 117/12 211435Z DEC 12 
C. CANFORGEN 008/13 CMP 005/13 222043Z JAN 13 
D. CANFORGEN 213/14 CMP 100/14 161808Z DEC 14 

THE PURPOSE OF THIS CANFORGEN IS TO INFORM CAF MEMBERS OF THE INCREASE IN PENSION CONTRIBUTION RATES, AS ANNOUNCED BY TREASURY BOARD, TO TAKE EFFECT 1 JANUARY 2016 FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2016 

REG AND RES F MEMBERS WHO CONTRIBUTE TO THE FULL-TIME PENSION PLAN (CFSA PART I) WILL PAY 9.05 PERCENT UP TO THE C/QPP MAXIMUM AND 11.04 PERCENT ON EARNINGS ABOVE THIS MAXIMUM. THIS REPRESENTS AN INCREASE OF 0.9 PERCENTAGE POINTS AND 0.64 PERCENTAGE POINTS RESPECTIVELY. THE MAXIMUM EARNINGS COVERED BY C/QPP FOR 2016 WILL BE 54,900 DOLLARS 

BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION, A MEMBER EARNING 60,000 DOLLARS WILL PAY 9.05 PERCENT ON THE FIRST 54,900 DOLLARS OF EARNINGS AND 11.04 PERCENT ON THE REMAINING 5,100 DOLLARS OF EARNINGS. THIS MEMBER WOULD SEE A MONTHLY INCREASE OF 41 DOLLARS AND 65 CENTS IN CONTRIBUTIONS OVER 2015 CONTRIBUTIONS 

THESE RATES WILL BE APPLIED ON THE 15 JANUARY 2016 PAY 

THIS ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT AFFECT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RESERVE FORCE PENSION PLAN (CFSA PART I.1) RATES WHICH WILL REMAIN AT 5.2 PERCENT OF PENSIONABLE EARNINGS 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CAF PENSION PLAN ARRANGEMENTS, INCLUDING CONTRIBUTION RATES, CONSULT THE CAF PENSIONS WEB PRESENCE AS FOLLOWS: HTTP://WWW.FORCES.GC.CA/EN/CAF-COMMUNITY-PENSION/INDEX.PAGE QUESTIONS MAY BE DIRECTED BY EMAIL TO: (PLUS SIGN)DPSP.PENSION.DPPS (AT SIGN)FORCES.GC.CA 

There goes our future pay increase.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Dec 2015)

Merry Christmas, troops. PS. You're not getting a pay raise either.

$41 bucks a month (likely 50 at my pay scale) is my entire IPC increase this year.


----------



## NavyShooter (18 Dec 2015)

Top 2%......revenue neutral.....what buzzwords do we hit next?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Merry Christmas, troops. PS. You're not getting a pay raise either.
> 
> $41 bucks a month (likely 50 at my pay scale) is my entire IPC increase this year.



Loyalty and GAFF will go down the equivalent amounts?   >

Come on, we are the easiest targets!  No union, can't strike and the average citizen thinks 'we don't pay taxes!!!!!!!'.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Dec 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Loyalty and GAFF will go down the equivalent amounts?   >
> 
> Come on, we are the easiest targets!  No union, can't strike and the average citizen thinks 'we don't pay taxes!!!!!!!'.



Exactly.  As the largest Department in the Government, it is too easy to target.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Exactly.  As the largest Department in the Government, it is too easy to target.



Guess we got one of these on our backs then.....


----------



## DAA (18 Dec 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Loyalty and GAFF will go down the equivalent amounts?   >
> 
> Come on, we are the easiest targets!  No union, can't strike and the average citizen thinks 'we don't pay taxes or for our housing!!!!!!!'.



Fixed that for you above!

I don't mind paying into the plan but what I really really hate, is the huge chunk it takes out of my RRSP Contribution room.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2015)

I'll have to remind my mortgage broker I don't pay for housing when I renew next time!   :subbies:


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Merry Christmas, troops. PS. You're not getting a pay raise either.
> 
> $41 bucks a month (likely 50 at my pay scale) is my entire IPC increase this year.



Just received my last IPC, the gross from the raise is less than what the net amount for the deduction will be.  So, two steps forward.  One step back.  Comes on my birthday too.  Gee, thanks.  Bastards...


----------



## dapaterson (18 Dec 2015)

This should come as a surprise to no one.  The contribution rates have been going up yearly for quite some time; in fact, there used to be limits under the law about how much contribution rates could be raised in a single year.  The last government eliminated that limit and started jacking up rates.

The ultimate goal is to have contributions cover half the cost of the pension plan.  (Well, that's not quite true.  CAF members will pay the same rates as the public servant, who are to be paying half the cost of the plan.  Since military pensions have fewer restrictions on when they can be drawn, military pensions cost more than PS ones, so if CAF and PS contributions are the same, CAF members are better off).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2015)

Doesn't mean we have to be "happy" with no pay raise, cost of living going up regardless, and now $100 less in our bank accounts each month.  I love my country, but I still have bills, a mortgage and shit like that.  How about reducing government waste before taking more $ off my pay check.  It's not like I am going to be rich, but no need to ensure it won't happen anymore than the status quo.

But hey, lets keep giving billions of dollars to country X!


----------



## FyroniK (30 Dec 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Doesn't mean we have to be "happy" with no pay raise, cost of living going up regardless, and now $100 less in our bank accounts each month.  I love my country, but I still have bills, a mortgage and crap like that.  How about reducing government waste before taking more $ off my pay check.  It's not like I am going to be rich, but no need to ensure it won't happen anymore than the status quo.
> 
> But hey, lets keep giving billions of dollars to country X!



Noone said we aren't getting a pay raise... out pay is tied to the collective bargaining agreement, which hasn't been signed since the last time we got a raise with backpay included as I assume will be when they finally get around to signing the next one.

The unions have been fighting the horrible conservative cutters on that subject for years now, maybe we will get a nice raise with them gone, who knows, of course problem being to raise one, means they have to raise them all which many people don't like to see in the media .

http://psacunion.ca/ct for updates on that.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Dec 2015)

FyroniK said:
			
		

> Noone said we aren't getting a pay raise... our pay is tied to the collective bargaining agreement...



I think the benchmark is "no less than" the PS as opposed to "tie to" the PS. An important distinction.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Dec 2015)

FyroniK said:
			
		

> Noone said we aren't getting a pay raise... out pay is tied to the collective bargaining agreement, which hasn't been signed since the last time we got a raise with backpay included as I assume will be when they finally get around to signing the next one.
> 
> The unions have been fighting the horrible conservative cutters on that subject for years now, maybe we will get a nice raise with them gone, who knows, of course problem being to raise one, means they have to raise them all which many people don't like to see in the media .
> 
> http://psacunion.ca/ct for updates on that.



Absolutely true. The Liberals have to pay PSAC back for their support during the election, so we may get some sort of unintended raise when the union gets their kickbacks.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely true. The Liberals have to pay PSAC back for their support during the election, so we may get some sort of unintended raise when the union gets their kickbacks.



I don't think the union is getting any kickbacks.  Union leadership maybe.  (Has a definite similarity to First Nations Chiefs)


Now on that "ACCOUNTABILITY" that the Liberals just decided to 'cancel'; why are none of those Conservative 'Haters" not questioning a decision by Trudeau to no longer hold fees paid to Unions and First Nations to be accountable and disclosed to the public?  You can hate Harper and/or the Conservatives all you want, but to turn a blind eye to this corruption is complete BS.


----------



## McG (30 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't think the union is getting any kickbacks.  Union leadership maybe.  (Has a definite similarity to First Nations Chiefs)
> 
> 
> Now on that "ACCOUNTABILITY" that the Liberals just decided to 'cancel'; why are none of those Conservative 'Haters" not questioning a decision by Trudeau to no longer hold fees paid to Unions and First Nations to be accountable and disclosed to the public?  You can hate Harper and/or the Conservatives all you want, but to turn a blind eye to this corruption is complete BS.


So, I understand that you like to find the opportunity to bring up your hate-on for the Liberals, but changes to financial reporting by unions and First Nations is a topic that has SFA to do with military pensions.  There is already another thread where those ideas are part of the subject and not a tangent.


----------



## Pusser (31 Dec 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think the benchmark is "no less than" the PS as opposed to "tie to" the PS. An important distinction.



The actual term is "comparability with the Public Service."  What this means is that there is essentially a formula that is applied to certain benchmarks within the Public Service.  The end result of applying the formula is CF Pay.  The formula takes into account that there are benefits applied differently to the the CF and Public Service (e.g. overtime, acting pay, sick leave, annual leave, etc).  As a general rule, whenever the Public Service gets a raise, we get a bigger one.  However, the collective bargaining process between Treasury Board and the Public Service unions has to be completed first.  i suspect that this will happen soon and we will see a pay raise that will be backdated to at least 1 Apr 14


----------



## George Wallace (31 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, I understand that you like to find the opportunity to bring up your hate-on for the Liberals, but changes to financial reporting by unions and First Nations is a topic that has SFA to do with military pensions.  There is already another thread where those ideas are part of the subject and not a tangent.



I was pointing at a similarity in what was happening.  Apparently my backing up a statement, with a fact only results in one of your contemptful responses, with every post I make.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Dec 2015)

Meh, if I stick to my principles I am willing to eat this one.  I can't criticize what I perceive to be "gold-plated government pensions" if I receive on myself.  I'm fine with paying my share of a very good pension plan.


----------



## MJP (31 Dec 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Meh, if I stick to my principles I am willing to eat this one.  I can't criticize what I perceive to be "gold-plated government pensions" if I receive on myself.  I'm fine with paying my share of a very good pension plan.



Aye, my thoughts exactly.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Dec 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Meh, if I stick to my principles I am willing to eat this one.  I can't criticize what I perceive to be "gold-plated government pensions" if I receive on myself.  I'm fine with paying my share of a very good pension plan.



Is it not like the planned increases in CPP contributions and other planned increases, that it will hurt those that have been serving for over a decade or so, and only be beneficial to those who are about to enter into service?  In effect it is an additional 'tax' on your earnings for which you are not likely to see any benefit.  Perhaps a necessary evil, but quite harmful to those nearing the ends of their careers/employment.


----------



## McG (31 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Apparently my backing up a statement, with a fact ...


Your "facts" had SFA to do with the topic.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps a necessary evil, but quite harmful to those nearing the ends of their careers/employment.


Now you are back on topic, but I don't understand your logic.  Those nearing the end of their careers will get the same benefit having paid less for it through most of their career.  How do you see them being a particular focal point for harm?


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Dec 2015)

"Now you are back on topic, but I don't understand your logic.  Those nearing the end of their careers will get the same benefit having paid less for it through most of their career.  How do you see them being a particular focal point for harm?"

So, what additional benefits are there now that there wasn't before the rate increases?  Unless I am mistaken, and I sure hope I am, all I see are added increased contributions not benefits.  WFT, is so fantastic about that for anyone?


----------



## McG (31 Dec 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> So, what additional benefits are there now that there wasn't before the rate increases?  Unless I am mistaken, and I sure hope I am, all I see are added increased contributions not benefits.  WFT, is so fantastic about that for anyone?


Agreed.  Pers will now pay more to get the same thing.  But it seems to me this will be a greater impact on those who are early in their careers and will pay the higher rate through more (or all) of their career.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Dec 2015)

Yes, the young are getting boned by the man once more.  Agreed.  And as it was for us, it won't be the only time for them over the course of a career.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Dec 2015)

Anyone new won't notice. Anyone already vested in the system get screwed. Anyone on the 30/30 plan doesn't care anyways.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Dec 2015)

Au contraire, I am now, and have been for some years in the 30/30 bracket.  I care.  I hate belt fed from the man at anytime.  If I had already pulled the trigger to initiate the 30/30 count down, then yes, it would be moot.


----------



## CountDC (5 Jan 2016)

Agree - on 30/30 plan and considering the option.

My only real beef with these increases is that they started just after the Liberals took billions out of the pension stating that the plan had more than enough money and the take out would not have an impact.  Next thng you know they announce increases as there wasn't enough money in the plan (which just happened to be what I predicted and everyone thought I was crazy.  Wish now I had just been crazy).


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jan 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Agree - on 30/30 plan and considering the option.
> 
> My only real beef with these increases is that they started just after the Liberals took billions out of the pension stating that the plan had more than enough money and the take out would not have an impact.  Next thng you know they announce increases as there wasn't enough money in the plan (which just happened to be what I predicted and everyone thought I was crazy.  Wish now I had just been crazy).




Will you retire and run for politics some day?     [


----------



## Pusser (6 Jan 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Agree - on 30/30 plan and considering the option.
> 
> My only real beef with these increases is that they started just after the Liberals took billions out of the pension stating that the plan had more than enough money and the take out would not have an impact.  Next thng you know they announce increases as there wasn't enough money in the plan (which just happened to be what I predicted and everyone thought I was crazy.  Wish now I had just been crazy).



The increases in contribution rates had nothing to do with that.  The plan for the CFSA has always been that employee/employer contributions were to be much closer than they were.  The gradual increase in employee contributions over the last few years has simply been in order to bring things more into line with where they are supposed to be.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2016)

Gradual?  Contribution rates have more than doubled in the past 10 years.  Until 2011 (or possibly 12) there were restrictions in the law about how quickly rates were permtited to be changed - no more than 0.4% per year.  With that restrictor removed, contributions have grown significantly; this year, deductions on amounts up to the YMPE have increased 0.9%.

I support the increase in contributions to make the plans reach a 50/50 split (well, 50/50 for the public service; military and RCMP plans will contribute at the same rates but not reach that split), but we need to keep in mind the pain these changes cause.


----------



## Pusser (7 Jan 2016)

To be honest, I've never really considered the percentage increases.  I've only looked at the dollar amounts.  I needed to drink less at Starbuck's anyway.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Jan 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> To be honest, I've never really considered the percentage increases.  I've only looked at the dollar amounts.  I needed to drink less at Starbuck's anyway.



It's the old "slow boil" technique, to keep the frog from hopping out of the pot.  Look at that "small increase", then multiply by 5 1/2, and it's not so small after all.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Dec 2016)

And the Treasury Board has released the 2017 contribution rates.  Surprise!  They're increasing.

On amounts below YMPE, the rate will go from 9.05% to 9.47%; on amounts above YMPE, the increase will be from 11.04% to 11.68%.


https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/pensions/publications/notices-avis/2017-01-01-eng.asp


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2016)




----------



## kev994 (19 Dec 2016)

Should make RRSPs easy, I ought to be at 0 contribution room by now.


----------

