- Reaction score
- 12,375
- Points
- 1,040
Seniors Benefits Discussion- split from Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???
- Thread starter ytz
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 12,375
- Points
- 1,040
- Reaction score
- 9,520
- Points
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 8,237
- Points
- 1,260
Describe a good chunk.
You like facts so:
as of early October 2026, about 6% of all active EI recipients are aged 65 or older.
Key numbers (ESDC weekly data, current to October 4, 2026):
- There are 986,960 active EI recipients in total, of whom 59,570 are 65 and older. canadacanada
- That works out to 6.0% of active recipients, and seniors receive 5.7% of gross benefits paid. canada
Regional variation is significant: seniors make up 12.4% of recipients in Newfoundland and Labrador and 11.2% in PEI, versus 4.6% in Ontario and 3.9% in Alberta. That reflects seasonal work patterns in Atlantic Canada. canada
The share of all seniors that are on EI: it’s under 1%. Canada has roughly 8 million people aged 65+ so about 60,000 recipients is around 0.7%. That’s expected, since EI only covers seniors who are still working and lose insurable employment.
So not a thing other than a rounding error.
in 1970 I believe that minimum wage was 1.50. I was pulling 7.50 an hour plus hazard pay in a car plant in '68; as close as I can come
Actually, there are some of us who do enjoy reading them. I didn't say agree with them though the same as we read your comments. I don't understand your logic though. Older people historically have earned more than younger people. Its called seniority and it is couple with experience. The Vietnamese ladies in the greenhouse make more than the students because they produce more per hour; they are more efficient workers. An older bricklayer works far faster than any freshly licensed 20 year old and so on. You seem to think that a person should start off at the top of the pay scale and work his way down. That has never, repeat never been the way of the world. And why should it be compulsory to retire at 65? You suggested that a person that doesn't retire doesn't have a life while in fact many of us have had a great life with kids and holidays and mortgage payments, baseball games and all the rest of it. But you can't play games all the time and the kids do leave eventually and there are only so many seniors' cruises to take before they get boring as hell. Raise the ceiling on the supplements, that is OK but stop wasting our money on frivolous programmes designed to instill party loyalty before you do and start paying for things out of your own pocket. A number of countries are increasing the retirement age because of dwindling pension funds. All I did at 65 was change hats. Sure there was a cut in pay but I continued to be productive. My great-uncle was still stooking when he was over 80. He wasn't fast but he was working. People keep working because it provides a reason for getting up in the morning and a sense of satisfaction when you finish in the evening. That doesn't change with age. A person looking forward to retirement has not put enough value on his current life.
Where did I say anything about CPP?
I do. That's why I have not made this about age. I have made this about income. People with six figure incomes shouldn't be getting government handouts. We do this for people above 65. That's literally the only group in society we do this for. I would like this to stop.
And these days, it's not just OAS. Muncipalities give property tax breaks for 65+. Transit agencies give seniors discounted fares (not a small matter against say a commuter spending hundreds on the GO Train). These are all policies based on an era when seniors were actually poor. They are now the wealthiest and some of the highest income cohort in the country. Ergo, the breaks should be removed.
- Reaction score
- 2,624
- Points
- 1,260
Age aside for just a moment ,
I think it's fair - hope our readers do as well - that Veterans Service Card holders ride free on Brampton and Mississauga Transit, all GO trains and buses , UP Express and a 25% discount on VIA Rail. 12070
Perhaps other Transit agencies as well.
24 / 7 / 365
- Reaction score
- 8,237
- Points
- 1,260
Huh
I won't bother making arguments about the demographic challenge facing Canada and all other Western countries, because it is obvious that you will not entertain any challenge to your view.
Have a nice day sir, madam, or other.
I beg to differ. It seems that most of your argument has focused on the over 65 set, with quite a bit of vehemence.
So every CAF member above WO or Capt, and some Sgts. Got it. Your wealth threshold for cut off from government support incorporates about 40 percent of the CAF... Got it
The eligibility for OAS means that many CAF members will not be able to claim it, based on their pension alone, and Gaia forbid that they get a job upon retirement. I certainly do not qualify, but in keeping with your view, now that I am retired, it should be illegal for me work because I would be fairly compensated for my labour? Or maybe because I am an immigrant? Because my house is worth 600K, am I bad? I bought it for 250k 10 years ago, so I am clearly a profiteer who should be vilified.
So kinda like a student pass for transit?
I won't bother making arguments about the demographic challenge facing Canada and all other Western countries, because it is obvious that you will not entertain any challenge to your view.
Have a nice day sir, madam, or other.
- Reaction score
- 9,019
- Points
- 1,260
The best path forward if OAS is going to be ratchetted back on seniors based on their income level is to reduce your contributions to a RSP and focus on your TSFA, with the goal of maxing it out to the highest amount possible. There will be many individuals looking to do this going forward.
Use the tools that the government puts in your hands to the most efficient outcome possible.
Use the tools that the government puts in your hands to the most efficient outcome possible.
- Reaction score
- 12,375
- Points
- 1,040
Your citation mentioned CPP, so you did say "something". Equally pedantic, you did only say "a good chunk" (ie. not "all"), but without defining how much a "good chunk" is. It would be better if you quantified the chunk and didn't leave readers to guess how much. Information shouldn't be presented in a way that makes it vague or easy to misunderstand. If we're going to discuss OAS and use terms that have acquired a pejorative flavour, let's pull out OAS and talk about just OAS.
At the same time they are still collecting education from us which is a service we definitely don't use anymore. There are other municipal services that most seniors don't use as well so they cut us a bit of a break on transit. One reason for that is simply that we avoid it during peak periods. Our ridership fills the dead spots when the buses etc. are more than half empty. And it does encourage some seniors who are better off on transit from taking their cars out of the garage or even getting rid of them. The 407 has different rates depending on time of day why shouldn't seniors get a similar break? Why do they cut us a break in the first place? Let me turn that around a little. Why do they cut the military a break with discounts or even free fares? It is a way to say thank you for your service whilst the municipalities are saying the same thing to the seniors: thank you for your contributions to our society over the last 35 years. Here are half price tickets. And a lot, not all of course, have earned that respect. My neighbour was up 3 mornings a week at 2 to head to the Food Terminal where he had a stall rain or shine winter and summer. He never did retire but died whilst carrying two blue jugs of water out to supply his workers. He was well into his 80s. He wasn't unique: there are many who worked just as hard. I don't think he ever rode the TTC so he never got to take advantage of his seniors rates but he certainly earned that right regardless of his bank balance. Instead of being bent and bitter why not take a moment and thank a senior for helping make Canada a better place to live.
And?
It would include me, in a few years.
And guess what? I'm okay with that. People making that much don't need government handouts. And that doesn't change when you magically reach 65 or because we wear relish PJs to work. Seems strange to me that you think we should only advocate for things where we don't have skin in the game.
PS. Your math is off. The pay scale is generous now. But it's still 35 years for a GSO Capt or a WO to make a 100k pension. It's a rare non-specialist member collecting a $100k with just 25 years.
I'm not "bent and bitter". What I am, is concerned that we've got major fiscal issues and a good chunk of that is entitlement programs that aren't addressing anything but age based privileges. Contrast that against growing needs elsewhere in society. This is an extremely volatile situation.
I don't want us to end up like France.
I've got great investments. I've got a six figure pension coming with a few more YOS. And a spouse with an EU passport. I can sit on a beach in Cyprus and watch the shitshow from afar when I retire. But that would be rather selfish of me. I don't want to leave a mess for future generations, including my own kids.
You mean the same argument that many of us have been making here? Why do you think I see a problem with CCB having literally half the phase out threshold of OAS? What effect do you think that has on the demographic challenge we face?
- Reaction score
- 9,019
- Points
- 1,260
If your concern is about 'us ending up like France', then any potential savings from clawing back or reducing OAS payments should go directly to the bottom line of the ledger, not to increasing, enhancing, expanding or creating government hand outs. Increasing the income levels of some senior citizens doesn't move the economic needle virtually at all in improving the economy. Using any potential savings to directly reduce and pay down the Federal debt/deficit does. This would move us further away from 'becoming France.'
But I don't believe that is what you are proposing. I believe that your proposing using this 'new found money' to expand and create new government programmes that will further tie individuals to relying on the Federal government for their survival and lively hood. Thus creating an even more entrenched and pronounced 'cradle to grave' omnipotent government welfare state. Am I wrong on this?
- Reaction score
- 2,624
- Points
- 1,260
Funny thing is , I try to be polite and friendly , as always, but just care less about the approval of others than I used to when I was working.
On the other hand , I enjoy our pensioner luncheons and coffee klatschs.
I didn't really care for some of those guys back then. But, today, I love every damn one of them.
Probably for the most selfish reason of all, we were young together.
Life's sort of funny that way.
