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

[ytz]

I'd love to see Carney propose a more radical rethink of OAS than Harper, then, after the complaints, move to something only a bit more radical than Harper.

For example, suggest OAS moving from 65 to 70 at a rate of 6 months per year (so a ten year transition) and inflating at half of the CPI increase.

I don't think OAS will ever get fixed. The biggest defenders of it are usually the supposed fiscal conservatives screaming to cut everything else. Full of excuses on why OAS should never be cut and why everything else is wasteful. Entitled to their entitlements.

At this point, just work around it. Just build whatever else. And eventually when the Boomers are gone we'll be forced to deal with the can kicking.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I don't think OAS will ever get fixed. The biggest defenders of it are usually the supposed fiscal conservatives screaming to cut everything else.

Of course they are. Binders full of studies to prove it.

At this point, just work around it. Just build whatever else. And eventually when the Boomers are gone we'll be forced to deal with the can kicking.

When the Boomers are gone, each generation in succession is likely to be equally selfish. It's not as if conservative parties in Canada are overthrowing Liberal and NDP governments everywhere on the strength of voters under 60, and most new spending programs are established by Liberal or NDP or both working together.

The only kicked can that's likely to be fixed will be when voters effectively draw a line through resurgent defence spending.

 

[ytz]

The only kicked can that's likely to be fixed will be when voters effectively draw a line through resurgent defence spending.

Quite the bet to assume that voters will choose defence spending over everything else while they perceive less and less value from their taxes as more and more goes to OAS, debt interest and defence. One of those three is untouchable. Make OAS untouchable and they will cut the third.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Quite the bet to assume that voters will choose defence spending over everything else while they perceive less and less value from their taxes as more and more goes to OAS, debt interest and defence. One of those three is untouchable. Make OAS untouchable and they will cut the third.

Based on history, expecting Canadians to show low support for defence spending is the safest bet. As much as some people gripe in the abstract about the cost of OAS, I can guess that a large number of people will very concretely have at least one relative or know one recently departed who is/was just getting by on OAS/GIS. Reformers ought to be very specific about reform; if they don't distinguish themselves from "cut OAS" and sloppily express their aim as "cut OAS", they'll be branded as "cut OAS" and won't get much sympathy. I support stricter means testing; I'm confident that the people who are projecting bitter inter-generational resentment and refusing to correctly select the aim for fixing federal spending aren't going to succeed.

 

[ytz]

Gen Squeeze says capping the income threshold at $100k would save $7B. The majority of the public wants a lower threshold in line with Child Benefits. If you don't think kids need to be fed after the parents make $81k, their grandparents definitely don't need more pogey.

Paul Kershaw argues the current income threshold for phasing out OAS benefits is too high. Under existing rules, retired couples earning up to $185,000 annually can still receive the full benefit of roughly $18,000.

Kershaw says that threshold means only about four per cent of seniors are excluded from receiving OAS due to high income.

“This generosity helps explain why OAS’s rapidly rising cost is a primary contributor to Ottawa’s $78-billion deficit,” he said.

A new poll by Research Co. suggests Canadians are open to changes. The survey found that three-quarters of respondents support reform—including three in four Canadians of retirement age.

About 70 per cent of respondents said OAS payments should be reduced for retirees with six-figure incomes. The proposal includes lowering the household income eligibility threshold from $185,000 to $100,000—a move Research Co. estimates could save roughly $7 billion annually.

Research Co. president Mario Canseco says just over 60 per cent of those surveyed believe the OAS threshold should be the same as, or lower than, the $81,000 cutoff used for the Canada Child Benefit.

Both Kershaw and Research Co. estimate that broader reforms could generate up to $20 billion in annual savings.

...

Proposal to cut OAS for high-income seniors could save billions

A University of British Columbia professor says changes to Old Age Security (OAS) could help reduce Canada’s projected $78-billion deficit.

vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca

Here's Prof Kershaw presenting the Gen Squeeze proposal at a presser:

And Gen Squeeze has broadly argued that higher defence spending is part of generational fairness and that among other obligations a rusted out military is like passing down rusted out infrastructure.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Gen Squeeze says capping the income threshold at $100k would save $7B. The majority of the public wants a lower threshold in line with Child Benefits. If you don't think kids need to be fed after the parents make $81k, their grandparents definitely don't need more pogey.

So, wonder of wonders, we're not going to save $100 billion. People should not keep throwing that number out unless they advocate complete elimination of the program.

So keep going. What happens at $81K, or at Canadian median income?

 

[ytz]

So, wonder of wonders, we're not going to save $100 billion. People should not keep throwing that number out unless they advocate complete elimination of the program.

Nobody said we're going to save $100B. Stop with the Strawman.

Likewise, nobody says cancelling Alto will close the deficit. Doesn't stop your ilk from campaigning for that. But $7B going to other priorities (including deficit, defence and infrastructure) is a hell of a lot better use of that money than pogey to people with six figure incomes. Your previous argument was that nobody had articulated a proposal. Now you have one.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Nobody said we're going to save $100B. Stop with the Strawman.

I understand that there are games that can be played with words and numbers in order to advance points of view. OAS has become a new whipping boy (in some mentions surpassing the deficit itself for first mention), but it works best if the biggest possible number can be presented. So we have people writing about how the annual cost of OAS is projected to be more than $100B in a few years. It's not the actual amount that can be saved short of eliminating the program, and it's not even the actual amount spent right now, but it's a nice round big-sounding figure. It's fair to call that behaviour out.

A reasonable means test could save some money, but obviously not three figures. Honest interlocutors will highlight those numbers, not try to misdirect people about what is reasonable and practical, and accept the fact that $7B or $10B or some other modest claimed savings isn't going to get people as usefully excited about the issue. And they won't allude to fixing the deficit if their goal is merely to redirect the money somewhere else, or vice versa.