On savings plans

Andrew Jackson rightly points out that while the Cons and far too many of their provincial counterparts are resisting any move to ensure universal pension security through the CPP and public supplements, the position that it's enough to tinker with voluntary savings plans isn't shared by economists:

The third main argument against (CPP expansion) is the “nanny state” argument – individuals should bear responsibility for their own fate. In point of fact, many of the experts give short shrift to this one and agree that individuals left to their own devices tend to save far too little, and also invest very badly and at high cost. Kesselman argued that the state will have to pay in the final analysis and that an expanded CPP will reduce future GIS expenditures and create room for user fees on the elderly for their health care and other needs. There seems to be a lot of support for opt out schemes and larger pools of investment savings than RRSPs, on the basis that leaving individuals on their own just doesn’t work. It is unclear to say the least why mandatory inclusion is the acceptable basis of private employer pension plans but is unacceptable when it comes to expanding CPP.

As Jackson notes, the group of economists broadly agreeing that the "nanny state" argument is utter nonsense was organized by Jack Mintz - the same, conservative-friendly figure whose own report is being relied on as much of the excuse for doing nothing. So to the extent even Mintz' group of attendees sees no point in wasting time with half measures, it's probably safe to say that voluntary plans aren't much worth discussing.

With that in mind, the real public policy question to be decided seems to be less whether the CPP is the best vehicle to improve pension income compared to voluntary schemes or high-income-friendly deductions, and more whether we should simply do nothing at all on the assumption that there's no problem to be solved. And that debate looks to offer ideal ground for the position that Canadians should expect more security than they're currently offered.