it won't hurt jobs, and it will help people in the long run. further, it's nice to see some policy based on behavioural economics. one hopes that homo economicus is on the path to extinction; it seems, it couldn't compete.

but, let's not be naive. sure: this might help people in the long run, so long as it remains viable relative to the inflate and burst cycle. but, the real winners are investors. that's a lot of other people's money to gamble.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ontario-retirement-pension-plan-who-loses-who-wins-1.3189773 

Angry Earl
actually the investor's (banks, mutual fund companies, etc) would benefit most from the private investment (e.g. RRSPs, TFSAs) rather than a government pension plan because they make money off the fees, but the investment costs with large pension plans (e.g. CPP, Ontario Teachers, OMERS) are trivial in a percentage cost and the investment returns have greatly exceeded the private sector over many years. If I could have CPP or OMERS invest my money for me, I would be glad to turn over my portfolio.

Jessica Murray
that may be technically true, but we're talking about creating funds by taxing people that otherwise wouldn't create rrsps - *because* they wouldn't otherwise create rrsps.

it's going to end up in the hands of investors, who are going to gamble it on the stock market and do all other kinds of shady things with it. in the end, they get the largest profit, not the pensioners.

state propaganda speaks of things like "educating people about how to save and invest". it's misunderstanding that it's not an issue of education (although it may be broadly lacking) so much as it's an issue of priority. personally? i have no plans to make it to 65. i'd rather spend the money on beer and popcorn. i can't argue i'd invest it better, i'd argue i don't care about investing it. but, then what happens when i make it to 79, after planning my whole life to live to 59? "oops. forgot to save. too busy having fun.". well, that's what a government *does*...

if there are windfalls, the government could very well raid it; i don't see a big problem with that, so long as nobody gets a letter in the mail telling them there's no money left. conversely, if there are shortfalls, the state will make up the difference through other means.

instead of handing off the money to investors, they could pocket it. but, they won't, because they don't want to. and, they don't have the initial stock market capital that you can get by pooling money together, either - which is very useful if you're going in.