Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[brihard]

I read that the budget is doing away with RRIFs. It looks like a simpler way of managing retired folks’ finances.

Garth Turner, ex-MP, CRA minister and prolific blogger wrote this;
=================
And the biggie: does messing with the retirement structure signal that Carney has a far larger agenda for dealing with runaway senior benefit costs? Will OAS – the largest expenditure the feds face – be in the crosshairs? Will we stop handing out money to people who don’t need it, and lower the clawback threshold? Will RRSP contribution limits be pushed far higher (like to 30% of income rather than 18%) to encourage personal savings? Will TFSA income in retirement be made taxable above a certain income level (it’s now utterly tax free for everyone)?

Without a doubt, the current system benefits the wealthy. It’s also unsustainable.

Yes, this change is good. But they’re still Liberals. Even bearing gifts.
====================

Here’s to hoping that Mr.Turner is reading the tea leaves correctly!

I would support increasing OAS clawback and reducing the income level at which you would still get it, and I say that as someone who, at present, would probably benefit from it but would lose out if my preferred policy won, so it’s contrary to my personal interest. OAS math as it is now is absurd.

I have an RRSP and LIRA - mostly my transfer value from my PRes pension plus the odd additional lump sum, usually when I get a new collective agreement with back pay. I haven’t wrapped my head around how RRSP/RRIF work in old age. I just like the immediate up front return on investment in deferred tax liability. So I don’t yet have an informed opinion on RRSP/RRIF.

 

[dapaterson]

The least painful OAS adjustment would likely be reducing the indexing rate for the clawback to, say, half of CPI. That would over time reduce transfers to individuals with higher incomes.

The Harper era increase to eligibility was good policy but bad politics (like Mulroney and the GST).

 

[brihard]

The least painful OAS adjustment would likely be reducing the indexing rate for the clawback to, say, half of CPI. That would over time reduce transfers to individuals with higher incomes.

The Harper era increase to eligibility was good policy but bad politics (like Mulroney and the GST).

Nah, screw it, do it painfully. If they target increased clawbacks at people who will not be battered by it financially, they could introduce more aggressive cuts on a more aggressive timeframe. Since OAS is not derived from any contributions and is pure largesse, they can justify reducing it for high income seniors much more aggressively.

 

[dapaterson]

Nah, screw it, do it painfully. If they target increased clawbacks at people who will not be battered by it financially, they could introduce more aggressive cuts on a more aggressive timeframe. Since OAS is not derived from any contributions and is pure largesse, they can justify reducing it for high income seniors much more aggressively.

Not arguing that we shouldn't just rip off the bandaid, but slowly eroding it is less visible to current beneficiaries.

The NDP will no doubt complain; the wild card is whether the CPC will follow their fiscal conservatism or their populist instincts.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Apparently the solution to a housing shortage is to increase demand while struggling to keep up with supply.

Investment money flowing into the country also has supply side effects - more housing stock gets built.

The profit incentive is selfish, but the central critical wonderful thing about profit selfishness is that the profiteer first has to create something other people want, unless he has the power to tax them.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Without a doubt, the current system benefits the wealthy. It’s also unsustainable.

The "current system" we had back when the federal government posted net surpluses year after year was pretty much by definition sustainable. What changed? Revenues didn't fall off. The "unsustainability" is entirely a function of new burdens on the expense side.

 

[ytz]

I would support increasing OAS clawback and reducing the income level at which you would still get it, and I say that as someone who, at present, would probably benefit from it but would lose out if my preferred policy won, so it’s contrary to my personal interest. OAS math as it is now is absurd.

Same here.

I just don't see the point for anybody making six figures getting OAS. That's 85th percentile income in Canada. And I would bet that's top 5% for seniors in Canada. Average senior income is $36.4k for singles and $79.7k for couples. A single retireee making $100k is well beyond most seniors.

Even for the CAF, almost nobody but specialist officers, senior officers and Chiefs with a CD2 are making that much for a pension. I may be one of those folks and I'm fine giving up the beer money so that the country can do something better with those funds.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Same here.

I just don't see the point for anybody making six figures getting OAS. That's 85th percentile income in Canada. And I would bet that's top 5% for seniors in Canada. Average senior income is $36.4k for singles and $79.7k for couples. A single retireee making $100k is well beyond most seniors.

Even for the CAF, almost nobody but specialist officers, senior officers and Chiefs with a CD2 are making that much for a pension. I may be one of those folks and I'm fine giving up the beer money so that the country can do something better with those funds.

It's not a Wage, and it's not Welfare, so tread carefully...

‘Target on its back’: Report argues against OAS reform​

Ahead of the budget, a new report says changes to Ottawa’s costliest social program should be approached with caution

A research institute focused on seniors’ policy is urging caution when discussing changes to old age security.

OAS funding depends on the “ongoing support of the electorate,” says the report from the National Institute on Ageing.

“Calls for change must be considered in the context of the unwritten intergenerational covenant underpinning the program, which has survived for generations.”

OAS is the federal government’s most expensive social program. It is projected to cost about $89 billion this fiscal year.

In recent years, some politicians and academics have called for the program to be reformed, saying it often benefits seniors who are already well-off.

But Talia Bronstein, a report co-author and director of policy at the National Institute of Ageing research centre, says reform proposals are often shortsighted and ignore the “interconnected” nature of Canada’s retirement system.

“It’s very easy to point to OAS in the federal budget and say, ‘Look, it’s the biggest line item’ … and that puts a target on its back,” said Bronstein.

“[But] if you make changes in isolation, you are going to have unintended consequences to this entire system,” she said.

‘Retirement income foundation’​

OAS is a monthly federal pension for those 65 and older.

Today, the maximum amount is $762 for those under 75 and $838 for those 75 and over. Amounts are tied to inflation and are adjusted quarterly.

OAS payments are reduced based on income. In 2026, clawbacks started for those whose 2025 income was $93,475 or more. Those whose income was $154,000 or higher did not receive any OAS payments.

Low-income OAS recipients may qualify for the guaranteed income supplement, which reaches about $685 or $1,138 a month, depending on an individual’s income and marital status.

Taken together, OAS and GIS provide a “retirement income foundation for Canadians,” the report from the National Institute on Ageing says.

‘Target on its back’: Report argues against OAS reform

Ahead of the budget, a new report says changes to Ottawa’s costliest social program should be approached with caution

www.canadianaffairs.news

 

[mariomike]

Back in the day, most gas stations had a fleet of kids pumping gas; now one - maybe two - managing the cash.

When customer service was a thing.

 

[brihard]

The "current system" we had back when the federal government posted net surpluses year after year was pretty much by definition sustainable. What changed? Revenues didn't fall off. The "unsustainability" is entirely a function of new burdens on the expense side.

Well, we have a lot more seniors receiving it. The last surplus was 2014-15. OAS recipients have increased 32% since then. Given that that’s an expansion of one of our largest federal expenditures, that growth in OAS recipients is a huge hit on the federal balance sheet.

I’ve yet to see anyone succesfully advance a principled position on why high income seniors should continue to receive OAS. It’s pure welfare.