I find it interesting that the justification for the 7% CI appears to the lack of CPP contributions prior to the CIF date. My situation probably isn't too far removed from the majority, if it's as I suspect, only a small proportion of reservists do this for a living. In my case, with the exception of two years of service while at university, I have been working on civy street maxing out on CPP every year. And since I started paying CPP on my Cl A pay, I've been getting it all back at tax time since I max out with my civy job. It seems redundant to me.
I would say your sit is far removed from the majority that I know of as most I know of outside the full time military did not hit the max. Most reservists used to be full time students and did not earn enough in a year to pay the max CPP. Even now working full time for minimum wage will not have you max your CPP as this would require a wage of $10.50 per hour. Although in your sit it is redundant to pay and then be reimbursed both employers are required to make the deductions to cover you - better to get back than to have the gov say you owe.
Has anyone given any thought to a grievance of any kind over some of this. I recall this thread discussing this option over the 7% CI in the past. This seems like a rather large target to go after. But what has had me ticked off for the last few days is the accruing of 4% SI on my buyback since I elected last July.
To me, at least strategically, I see the difference between taking on the system over the 7% CI versus the 4% SI. It's two different issues (design vs. poor administration) and it's on the poor administration issue that I think we could have a reasonable opportunity to make a case. It shouldn't cost personnel any extra of their hard earned cash to pay for poor administration.
