Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is nothing to do with being liberal - it's just a compulsory payment legally required by to be made by employers. Liberal should equate with choice.
NZ has a similar scheme, but while the employers contribution is also legally required [at a lower rate than Australia], joining the scheme isn't mandatory.
NZ pensions aren't means tested.
Its a bit more than that though; its also about flexibility in employee contributions and to what degree they're encouraged by taxation law.
They don't fit the definition of liberal though, but of regulation.
Liberal in both the social and economic sense, is about freedom/choice, not requirements.
I would say that a liberal approach to retirement, would allow one to retire broke, rich, or anywhere in between.
You can certainly take any of those options here ;-) Some retired folk here go on a massive spending spree in their early retirement, betting that they won't necessarily live that long, and that a government pension will support them in later life if the math didn't work out that way.
You can certainly take any of those options here ;-) Some retired folk here go on a massive spending spree in their early retirement, betting that they won't necessarily live that long, and that a government pension will support them in later life if the math didn't work out that way.
That's the same as here, but that's not the issue.
Forcing regulation and financial contribution from employers, for the retirement of another, isn't socially or economically liberal
That's the same as here, but that's not the issue.
Forcing regulation and financial contribution from employers, for the retirement of another, isn't socially or economically liberal
But higher taxation to fund government controlled pensions is?
From a social perspective, the more people are able to make their own decisions and not be dependent on the agenda of a government of the day seems a better option.
But higher taxation to fund government controlled pensions is?
From a social perspective, the more people are able to make their own decisions and not be dependent on the agenda of a government of the day seems a better option.
No, but I'm not saying it is - just that your example of being more liberal, isn't a good one.
I don't think there would be much difference between the three countries. Laws don't always reflect attitudes, and attitudes don't always reflect law.
I agree that a financially secure retirement is better, but it isn't liberal.
I think here even if we are not liberal we are laid back. For example, although a considerable percentage of the population did oppose gay marriage in the vote, it is a complete non issue now. There have been a few photos of the first marriages and that has been it.
Religion and politics are almost completely separated here. Religious politicians, and we have a few, rarely mention their views unless it is particularly relevant to an issue, as some thought with the gay marriage vote.
But are you talking about economically liberal or socially liberal?
After speaking to Canadians in Australia though, Canada does seem to restrict choices available to the broader community on a number of key points, though.
Private health insurance, and hence access to care outside the government run system, seems limited to services not covered by that system. Public funding for schools outside the government run sector seems to be a contentious topic, and not available in many provinces. In those types of issues, Australia seems to offer more choice for the majority of people.
Similarly, Australia's programs for retirement income give the average working person far more opportunity to be self sufficient, and not be dependent on the government of the day, than is the case in New Zealand.
So the government run system in Canada is for Basic Healthcare only. It does not include things like prescriptions, dental care, chiropractic etc. If you want coverage for those things you need private care. People on social assistance will get some of that on a limited basis, otherwise it is usually through private insurance as part of a work benefits package.
As for Basic Healthcare - the premise behind the Cad system is that everyone is treated equally regardless if you are poor or wealthy. A private system in conjunction with a public one could be at odds with one another. You may get the better talented H.C professionals attracted to the private system where the pay is greater and thus wealthier individuals get better and faster care than those who can't afford it. There may be less choice for Basic Healthcare - but the premise of the system as a whole is that everyone is entitled to basic healthcare in an equitable manner and order of treatment is based on severity of the health issue and not if you can afford private options.
When you say public funding for schools outside the government sector seems to be contentious. I don't know what you mean by that. There certainly are private schools in Canada. Kids who go there are generally from well off families. Funding for those schools like Montessori here in Ontario - is funded by the deeper wallets of wealthy private families. If you have money in Canada - you can certainly send your kid to a private school.
When you say public funding for schools outside the government sector seems to be contentious. I don't know what you mean by that. There certainly are private schools in Canada. Kids who go there are generally from well off families. Funding for those schools like Montessori here in Ontario - is funded by the deeper wallets of wealthy private families. If you have money in Canada - you can certainly send your kid to a private school.
Here the non government school sector, including religious school networks, is funded by government nation wide. So you have large systems of Catholic, Anglican and increasingly other religious schools that are taxpayer funded. A large proportion of kids from all socio-economic backgrounds go to private schools. That seemed to really surprise someone from Nova Scotia I met here not long ago.
Last edited by Bakery Hill; 04-22-2018 at 04:15 PM..
Here the non government school sector, including religious school networks, is funded by government nation wide. So you have large systems of Catholic, Anglican and increasingly other religious schools that are taxpayer funded. A large proportion of kids from all socio-economic backgrounds go to private schools. That seemed to really surprise someone from Nova Scotia I met here not long ago.
I personally am not a big fan of taxpayers funding religious schools/school boards. In a secular society, public funding should be for the public system only. That said, I can't speak for Nova Scotia but here in Ontario and specifically Canada's largest city - Toronto, public funding for a religious school board is alive and well. Oddly enough The Toronto Catholic District School Board is the largest publicly funded Catholic school board in the world. Even though I do not agree about it getting public funds - it does attract many different people of socioeconomic backgrounds and is diverse as well.
From what I know, other religious school boards or schools outside Catholicism are not publicly funded.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
