If we use the old calculation (more advantageous) and his salary when the elections were launched as if he got that for 5 years (and that’s the most he’s been paid as an MP):
3% x 300k x 20 = 180k/year
It will be lower than that because of the calculation changing from 2016 forward.
Look at the website I shared, the calculation is right there. Trivedi made things more complicated than they need to be and he calculated based on the value of his fund, not the way it’s administered.
From the get go PP never earned enough to get 240k/year so…
I work in that field for the federal government, I know a thing or two about it myself.
To explain the issue with how it was calculated in the article, MPs put 20% of their salary in their pension fund, what that means is that they can end up having put in it millions of dollars over a long enough career and if they had that money to administer by themselves then yes PP could end up bringing home 20k/month BUT the way it’s administered isn’t like in the private sector, they don’t have access to all the money they put in their pension fund, they instead get a guaranteed amount of money every year (that’s indexed every year) but there’s a limit to how generous their pension is. Both how much they get every year and the maximum they can start with is based on the salary they made during their 5 best years of employment.
The same is true for all federal employees by the way, you can make 50k/year for 30 years and then work 5 years making 100k/year, how much you get when you retire will be based on those last 5 years, no matter how much you “put in the pot” the years prior.
That system works so well that it’s the envy of people in the private sector and it’s generating surplus that the federal government wanted to appropriate to add to its coffers (basically taking the money their employees paid in pension and adding it to their budget, which is the same as increasing the income taxes that federal employees paid retroactively).
I did the equation up there based on the pre-2016 calculation only (which is more generous, so I did it as if his 20 years of service were pre-2016) and using his lifetime highest salary (which is the one he had right before the election was launched) and as it’s clearly mentioned it cannot go over 75% of the average of the 5 best years as an MP so even at his current salary of 300k and with enough years of service to reach the point where it would give him 240k/year, it would be capped at 225k/year.
CBC News asked an accounting professor with pension expertise to estimate the value of all five major party leaders’ pensions. Four other experts, including an actuary, reviewed his findings.
There were five experts, the one I mentioned and four others reviewed him.
Apparently he gets a 10% reduction if he takes it at 55 instead of 65 but I’m sure you could skimp and save a bit to make that work.
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/pension-plan/pension-publications/reports/administration-members-parliament-retiring-allowances-act-report/fiscal-year-ended-march-31-2020.html#toc03
More info on all that stuff and no he’s not getting 20k/month
A calculation of Poilievre’s House of Commons pension indicates that he could draw more than $230,000 annually once he turns 65.
If we use the old calculation (more advantageous) and his salary when the elections were launched as if he got that for 5 years (and that’s the most he’s been paid as an MP):
3% x 300k x 20 = 180k/year
It will be lower than that because of the calculation changing from 2016 forward.
I think I’ll trust Shanker Trivedi, the program director of the Schulich School of Business masters of accounting program.
Look at the website I shared, the calculation is right there. Trivedi made things more complicated than they need to be and he calculated based on the value of his fund, not the way it’s administered.
From the get go PP never earned enough to get 240k/year so…
I work in that field for the federal government, I know a thing or two about it myself.
Did you work into the equation that he started twelve years before Jan 1 2016?
To explain the issue with how it was calculated in the article, MPs put 20% of their salary in their pension fund, what that means is that they can end up having put in it millions of dollars over a long enough career and if they had that money to administer by themselves then yes PP could end up bringing home 20k/month BUT the way it’s administered isn’t like in the private sector, they don’t have access to all the money they put in their pension fund, they instead get a guaranteed amount of money every year (that’s indexed every year) but there’s a limit to how generous their pension is. Both how much they get every year and the maximum they can start with is based on the salary they made during their 5 best years of employment.
The same is true for all federal employees by the way, you can make 50k/year for 30 years and then work 5 years making 100k/year, how much you get when you retire will be based on those last 5 years, no matter how much you “put in the pot” the years prior.
That system works so well that it’s the envy of people in the private sector and it’s generating surplus that the federal government wanted to appropriate to add to its coffers (basically taking the money their employees paid in pension and adding it to their budget, which is the same as increasing the income taxes that federal employees paid retroactively).
I did the equation up there based on the pre-2016 calculation only (which is more generous, so I did it as if his 20 years of service were pre-2016) and using his lifetime highest salary (which is the one he had right before the election was launched) and as it’s clearly mentioned it cannot go over 75% of the average of the 5 best years as an MP so even at his current salary of 300k and with enough years of service to reach the point where it would give him 240k/year, it would be capped at 225k/year.
There were five experts, the one I mentioned and four others reviewed him.