Seniors Benefits Discussion- split from Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Halifax Tar]

This conversation is very amusing.

Older Canadians sit in million dollar houses they bought at many times less than that worrying about what cottage or boat they might be asked to give up while telling younger Canadians to have more kids while they sit in small houses or rent while receiving a childcare subsidiaries that don't even come close to covering the time energy and money put into raising a child.

Meanwhile birth rates have plummeted to 1.25 children per women.

I hope everyone love immigration. It's down now, but will need to come back at some point because otherwise we are shrinking fast.

I am hoping with the approaching mass die off of the retired and boomers and elderly things will level out.

But my hopes are often crushed.

 

[Czech_pivo]

So if I'm not okay with student loans for students who have parents with million dollar assets (often called the family home). All people who own a home should be forced to sell it to fund their child's education. Not taxpayers.

That doesn't make much sense.

Not sure I understand what you're trying to say. I think that you are mixing up student loans with student grants.

What's wrong with ALL kids having the ability to obtain a student loan? There should be NO tie towards a kid getting student loans and their parents income - zero.

Once a kid hits 18yrs old, there is NO legal obligation for a parent to pay for anything towards the costs/upkeep of their kids. The kid are adults and the parents are not legally obligated to pay penny. Society here in Canada doesn't 'work' like that, and parent's heartstrings are pulled and we are 'forced' to pay for their kids uni costs. Same with the ability to get OSAP (at least in Ontario). To me, ALL kids should have access to get a student loan, independent of the income levels of their parents. I could see the argument made that the interest on the loans MIGHT be tied to the income level of the parents, but not necessarily.

Neither of my kids even qualified for student loans here in Ontario - not a single penny of a student loan. The government here believes that I and my kids should be fully paying for the costs completely on our end. It makes zero logic to me.

On one hand, the government says that my adult kids (18yrs) should be expecting their parents to contribute towards their education costs and they, the adult kid, is not eligible for a student loan, to be paid back in full at a later date, BUT on the other hand the government says that when it comes to medical/health issues my 18yr adult kid is completely able to make/handle those type of issues and that I as the parent no have ZERO rights to know any issues/concerns or be involved in any manner is utterly nuts.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

You don't. Its a generational moral failure.

I don't know your age (or anything else about you really so I do not know what generational cohort you are a member of. What policies that have been enacted by any government over the last 20 years that you consider to be a moral failure?

 

[ytz]

You will likely not be eligible for OS based on your pension income.

False. DB pension oncome is income period. No OAS for most of them.

Please look up the OAS thresholds. It doesn't start phasing out until over $90k income. And doesn't fully phase out till $140k annual income. Where you get that income from is not relevant.

I suspect you are mixing up OAS and GIS. Possibly even CPP. Learn the difference.

 

[Altair]

I am hoping with the approaching mass die off of the retired and boomers and elderly things will level out.

But my hopes are often crushed.

No worries.

With modern medicine, the average lifespan of older Canadians will be pushing 90.

25 years of sitting around in those homes, going to those cottages, pushing the healthcare systems to points of failure while collecting OAS.

That all said, this isn't a bug, it's a feature. The system was designed this way and it's fulfilling its goal. The fact generations following will be screwed is a sad consequence but not sad enough to change anything.

 

[ytz]

I am hoping with the approaching mass die off of the retired and boomers and elderly things will level out.

But my hopes are often crushed.

It won't get better. These dynamics are entirely driven by the average age of the population. And ours keeps getting older.

 

[Czech_pivo]

So you are saying you believe in socialism as an organising principle for this country?

What other things that other taxpayers do should be vilified in the pursuit of Canadian pastime of always bringing down anyone who might be getting ahead....

Maybe we should attack the game and not the player. I am not a fan of the current rules governing OAS, and i will never be able to draw it. I do not however feel that "senior MFers" should be vilified because of ths.

No, I'm as anti-socialist as they come. I'm trying to point out that 'low income' does NOT translate to 'low assets' or poverty. Please read my TFSA information. It not really that difficult with proper planning, discipline and time to structure a person's income to look to be 'low income' when in fact they are not. So, saying that ALL low income persons should have their low income topped off is the wrong approach. If you're going down that route, then it makes sense to look at all the assets that an individual has.

Tackling OAS is not going to address the scenario that I've given you above. The TFSA is the perfect vehicle, when used early, to its maximum and for 35+yrs to deliver the ability to be 'low income' but wealthy.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don't know your age (or anything else about you really so I do not know what generational cohort you are a member of. What policies that have been enacted by any government over the last 20 years that you consider to be a moral failure?

I'm 47 and Gen X. And I also accept my generations share of the blame. I am doing what I can to make sure I have the hard times and my daughter doesn't.

Its not always about policy. Its about people like my FIL who lives in a 5 bedroom house on a cul-du-sac and refuses to downsize, he's holding up a home for a young family. Not that they could afford his place anymore either.

 

[ytz]

No, I'm as anti-socialist as they come. I'm trying to point out that 'low income' does NOT translate to 'low assets' or poverty. Please read my TFSA information. It not really that difficult with proper planning, discipline and time to structure a person's income to look to be 'low income' when in fact they are not. So, saying that ALL low income persons should have their low income topped off is the wrong approach. If you're going down that route, then it makes sense to look at all the assets that an individual has.

Tackling OAS is not going to address the scenario that I've given you above. The TFSA is the perfect vehicle, when used early, to its maximum and for 35+yrs to deliver the ability to be 'low income' but wealthy.

We aren't even willing to cut off people with $90k income. And you want to work on asset testing? One step at a time....

Personally, I just think asset testing is a messy debate and gets into moral judgement territory. Would rather stick to simple income demarcations.

 

[ytz]

I'm 47 and Gen X. And I also accept my generations share of the blame. I am doing what I can to make sure I have the hard times and my daughter doesn't.

Its not always about policy. Its about people like my FIL who lives in a 5 bedroom house on a cul-du-sac and refuses to downsize, he's holding up a home for a young family. Not that they could afford his place anymore either.

Gen Squeeze did an analysis by bedrooms instead of homes. We have an unprecedented number of empty bedrooms in an country with a housing crisis largely driven by the first generation of seniors in history not to downsize.

Unable to downsize, more seniors are living in larger homes with empty bedrooms

A growing proportion of people are living in homes that are larger than they require and staying in place as they age, rather than downsizing

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Czech_pivo]

No; they shouldn’t be punished because the neighbourhood they spent their adulthood in jumped in price and their modest 1960s home now has a high knockdown value because of the lot it’s on. Why would we force them literally out of their homes? Home ownership is both a dream, and a social/community stabilizer. Attacking that would be both wrong, and untenable public policy.

You make the assumption all of these individuals bought and stayed in the same house for 40+yrs, that's not realistic.

The issue is - income vs assets - low income does NOT mean poverty or not having the ability to improve one's income level. Again, a person can have an income of 20K but be sitting on a 750K TFSA generating 30k a year in dividends/incomes that is NOT counted towards their 20k income in CPP/OAS payments. Is this person living in poverty? Are they 'low income', thus deserving of us taxpayers giving them another 10k a yr?

 

[Altair]

Gen Squeeze did an analysis by bedrooms instead of homes. We have an unprecedented number of empty bedrooms in an country with a housing crisis largely driven by the first generation of seniors in history not to downsize.

Why downsize? Housing is a investment asset. You don't get maximum returns by selling early.

Unless you mean to imply that housing is a housing asset, in which case....well, every law, every tax code, every investment vehicle will need to be torn up and start from scratch. Are we all voting NDP all of a sudden?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Depends who you are. Certain groups do quite well. The people in this article are complaining about having to cut back their annual vacation in Europe from 3 to 2 weeks and spend more time at their vacation home in Mexico. People like this get OAS.

"People like this get OAS."

People like that get a lot of things, including pensions, including public sector pensions, including well-indexed public sector pensions. Start swinging that resentment axe, and it's going to hit a lot of people, including people here whether today or tomorrow.

 

[captloadie]

Is it all not just cyclical? Has there been a period of time where the cohort of seniors have not been the wealthiest and the younger people have been those who have had to struggle to build their wealth, until they have become the wealthier senior cohort? Is the poverty level among young people that much worse than it was when I was in my 20's, or my parents were in their 20's? Has not every group of parents complained that the seniors are hoarding the wealth, and their children will be the ones to pay for Gov't lavish spending?

I surprise myself in that I am actually optimistic that eventually most individuals will figure out what works for them, and be able to build a stable life. They may have to fail a bit beforehand, and they may end up going down an employment path they didn't expect or want, but like all of us on here, we eventually found a path.

 

[ytz]

"People like this get OAS."

People like that get a lot of things, including pensions, including public sector pensions, including well-indexed public sector pensions. Start swinging that resentment axe, and it's going to hit a lot of people, including people here whether today or tomorrow.

You assume that I am a hypocrite. Probably projection on your part.

I am fine getting mine trimmed for the greater good.

 

[ytz]

Has there been a period of time where the cohort of seniors have not been the wealthiest

Most of history? Where do you think the trope of the penniless grandma living in a tiny apartment comes from? Those programs were all created in the post-war era specifically to address senior poverty. It's actually kinda incredible that all those programs and policies have worked so well that we can arrive at a question like yours today.

 

[brihard]

This conversation is very amusing.

Older Canadians sit in million dollar houses they bought at many times less than that worrying about what cottage or boat they might be asked to give up while telling younger Canadians to have more kids while they sit in small houses or rent while receiving a childcare subsidiaries that don't even come close to covering the time energy and money put into raising a child.

Meanwhile birth rates have plummeted to 1.25 children per women.

I hope everyone love immigration. It's down now, but will need to come back at some point because otherwise we are shrinking fast.

The ‘million dollar homes’ thing is a red herring. In almost all cases, those homes weren’t worth nearly that when bought. The prices spiked in the past decade. Yes, they could sell it for that, but then would need somewhere else to live that will probably cost most of that. For many, it’s a hedge asset for if they need to pay for costly seniors care later. If the sale of same is effectively forced,

You go where the most people are, and a home that costs a million bucks is almost all because of the spike in land values. While yes, those homes do constitute material wealth, they’re anchored to a specific need- keeping a roof overhead.

Some do sell and downgrade to smaller homes, others hang on to them to pass the value on to the kids. Probably the only way those kids have a hope in hell of eventual ownership themselves. Some seniors are low income and do draw on that wealth through reverse mortgages and the like. All good. But for most, that nominal value of their home - which is only realized if they sell or otherwise convert their equity - isn’t anything that helps them cover costs of living. Giving those seniors the option to stay rooted in their established communities and support networks is very worthwhile from a policy standpoint as we face a major demographic crunch.

The OAS policy question should be fought, I believe, at the income threshold level, and not on the front of home ownership. Now with that said, there may be room to look at whether other types of assets aside from primary home ownership should be considered, but that’s a whole different rabbit hole I won’t start down myself.

 

[brihard]

You make the assumption all of these individuals bought and stayed in the same house for 40+yrs, that's not realistic.

The issue is - income vs assets - low income does NOT mean poverty or not having the ability to improve one's income level. Again, a person can have an income of 20K but be sitting on a 750K TFSA generating 30k a year in dividends/incomes that is NOT counted towards their 20k income in CPP/OAS payments. Is this person living in poverty? Are they 'low income', thus deserving of us taxpayers giving them another 10k a yr?

Sorry, this thread’s moving fast. See the end of my previous reply. There can probably be a distinction drawn between primary residence and other assets.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Arguably they are hoarding the fruits of the laubours, which they really haven't earned either. They created all these social programs, underfunded and didn't maintain them for generations and they now expect the on coming generations cover that gap prop up their continued lavish lifestyle.

Sure. 2015. Election. Liberals essentially promised to out-do the NDP on borrowing and spending. Liberals voted in. Majority. Eligible voters: people born on or before Oct 19, 1997. Consequences: more spending, larger deficits, more borrowing. Subsequent will of voters: LPC/NDP mix, resulting in more underfunded social programs.

Eligible voters in most recent federal election: people born on or before Apr 28, 2007. Consequences: even more spending, even larger deficits, even more borrowing.

 

[ytz]

Is the poverty level among young people that much worse than it was when I was in my 20's, or my parents were in their 20's?