Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[childs56]

There is the occasional article in the MEJ, but there is a lot more being tried and used that doesn't make articles. It's done during the operational cycle as it's too late to do it in the DWP to plan the work, so once in a while they go onto the synchrolift for pre-docking surveys.

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/mej/44-088-maritimeJournal-109.pdf#page=9

Everyone on the ships, and people who regularly do work on the ships, but the photo of the hammer through the hull made it pretty hard for the BGHs to ignore that they are in really bad shape. That defect was actually found from NDT scanning with a little robot, then was verified by a DND SME.

Interesting article, but I am surprised they were not doing these things prior to this time line. Prior to major failure. Again the Military is so far behind on industry procedures it is almost silly. Especially considering the amount of money the Military spends. The time line sin the article seems a bit slow. Currently there are companies who scan large areas including isolated spots. Every day, I wonder if the Military needs an entire overhaul of their Maintenance contracts. Especially the ones that perform such crucial functions and seem to be behind on the times.
Those Floor scan arrays systems are pretty neat to use. You can get them where they roll themselves along. Work good for outside vessel areas. They even work underwater.

 

[Kirkhill]

Brian Mulroney and OAS

McInnes: Grey power potent in theory, not in practice

Tangle with seniors and it’s “goodbye Charlie Brown.”

vancouversun.com

 

[ytz]

As a former 7 Wg member I love this one....

Opinion: Canada faces a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stake a serious claim in space

As Ottawa announces historic levels of defence spending, wise investments into space systems would jump-start domestic industries and technologies while setting Canada up to lead in the future

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[ytz]

Sooner or later the ‘argument’ of stay at home Mom’s is no longer going to hold water.
With the average CDN family having less than 2 kids now, these Mom’s are working.

If you set Min income to LICO we're taking about $21-30k depending on their postal code. That's not making them rich. It's fine if they don't have income. Any working parent gets rewarded with CPP which that SAHM/D would have less of.

If we want to make it some kind of reward for working, maybe discount it so that OAS is phased out at 1.5 x LICO.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If you set Min income to LICO we're taking about $21-30k depending on their postal code. That's not making them rich. It's fine if they don't have income. Any working parent gets rewarded with CPP which that SAHM/D would have less of.

If we want to make it some kind of reward for working, maybe discount it so that OAS is phased out at 1.5 x LICO.

CPP isn't a reward. Compelled contributions to an investment fund with an RoI (to the contributor - RoI of the fund is meaningless to contributors if the gains aren't passed on to them) usually well below private fund averages is not a reward.

There are all sorts of cutoffs for various federal and provincial benefits based on income. Some are way too high, some are way too low.

 

[Czech_pivo]

If you set Min income to LICO we're taking about $21-30k depending on their postal code. That's not making them rich. It's fine if they don't have income. Any working parent gets rewarded with CPP which that SAHM/D would have less of.

If we want to make it some kind of reward for working, maybe discount it so that OAS is phased out at 1.5 x LICO.

Which, if any, G20 countries have anything similar to OAS?
Why should we continue down this path?
It should be run down. Draw a line in the sand of anyone of the age of X at this date going forward is eligible to receive it until death but those under X are no longer eligible to receive it.
GIS can be looked at in the future to potentially address the loss OAS for some individuals.

 

[Czech_pivo]

CPP isn't a reward. Compelled contributions to an investment fund with an RoI (to the contributor - RoI of the fund is meaningless to contributors if the gains aren't passed on to them) usually well below private fund averages is not a reward.

There are all sorts of cutoffs for various federal and provincial benefits based on income. Some are way too high, some are way too low.

Spoken like a true Libertarian.

Long term gains to the CPP are used to ensure the viability of CPP well into the future. With a continuing aging population and ever larger number of individuals pulling from CPP for ever longer periods of time, these gains are used to offset these costs.

A prime example of a pension fund 'kicking the can' down the road in addressing the need for increasing pension contributions (or cutting pensions!), would be the Ontario Teacher Pension Plan. As of the end of last year they have a ratio of 1 retiree to 1 worker. Meaning - that the contributions of 1 worker (teacher) is CLEARLY not coving the pension that the 1 retiree is receiving each year (and that pension is increasing equal to inflation each year). The plan sits at around 266 billion in assets - which earned just over 9% last year - which gave them about 27b in returns - a significant amount of that money is directly be paid out directly to the retirees. If the investment funds where to have 2-3yrs of negative returns, say a modest 5% per year, this would have a significant impact on the viability of the plan.

There is roughly 185,000 retirees and 185,000 workers/teachers.

If you are suggesting that each and every individual should have the right to individually manage/invest their investments, the financial institutions have pushed back against this concept for a few decades now (and within the US when there was talk about scrapping the SS program and allowing individuals control over their own destiny in investment planning). The financial institutions want nothing to do with this - the costs to manage/administer these sort on individuals plans is cost prohibitive. Needless to say that the VAST majority of individuals would FAIL to invest correctly (this would occur across ALL political stripes as financial incompetency is evenly/equally spread across the political spectrum). What would occur is senior poverty on a large scale across Canada.

 

[ytz]

Which, if any, G20 countries have anything similar to OAS?
Why should we continue down this path?
It should be run down. Draw a line in the sand of anyone of the age of X at this date going forward is eligible to receive it until death but those under X are no longer eligible to receive it.
GIS can be looked at in the future to potentially address the loss OAS for some individuals.

The problem is political feasibility. Politicians have to find a way to make cuts for the group that is most likely to vote. And let's be honest, this cohort has a proven track record of kicking future problems down the road. It's his we got to where we are.

So I think some kind of min income with a ramp down is probably sellable to more of them.

Though I would personally be okay with a straight up LICO bar. Above it you get nothing. Below it, we bring you to the bar. But I suspect a lot of people would find an idea like this quite harsh.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Also keep in mind that we are looking at a wave of boomer pensioners moving through the system and there are about 7 million eligible for OAS now and another 5.6 in the next 10 years.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The problem is political feasibility. Politicians have to find a way to make cuts for the group that is most likely to vote. And let's be honest, this cohort has a proven track record of kicking future problems down the road. It's his we got to where we are.

Even with a ramp down/ scaled claw back there is massive amounts of money to be saved with more appropriate means testing thresholds. The proportion of the population actually impacted by such a reform would be quite small relatively. If they were willing to get into the weeds to explain that it should actually be an easy sell politically in aggregate- so I see the issue being more at the donor/influencer level than the vote level.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Remember we haven't been at 2% GDP for defence since 1986. That 2% is supposed to be maintenance of a capable force, not the top end. You have to spend a lot more than 2% to get to the point that 2% is a worthy maintenance point.

So I was in the CAF in 86. Every piece of major equipment needed replacing. And they did start to do that, but now the org seems to be worse shape now than 84 when I joined. I also have a sad feeling that all the money in the world isn’t going to fix the deeper more troubling institutional issues of apathy, confusion, denial and corruption.

 

[CountDC]

don't forget the bucket of propwash!

We did bucket of steam. As I had prior knowledge they were not aware of I had no problem with sitting for a couple hours waiting for the bucket to fill while they all worked.

OAS or what ever other program they decide on could use some changes. Off the top I do tentatively like the idea of location based means testing to determine if and what is paid. I do think though this would create another issue for some people as I can see the agenda of "they don't have to live in Toronto so let's base it on location X which has a much lower level of income needed". Next step - let's create communities in neverland just for the seniors to live in so we don't have to pay them anything. Take their Pensions, CPP, etc to cover the cost and give them a $100 a month allowance.

 

[brihard]

Even with a ramp down/ scaled claw back there is massive amounts of money to be saved with more appropriate means testing thresholds. The proportion of the population actually impacted by such a reform would be quite small relatively. If they were willing to get into the weeds to explain that it should actually be an easy sell politically in aggregate- so I see the issue being more at the donor/influencer level than the vote level.

I’m exactly in the category of people who would lose out were OAS to become more stringently means tested- and personally I’m completely fine with that. I’m one of the shrinking proportion of younger Canadians who are ‘set’. Defined benefit pension for both myself and my wife, good solid jobs that are resilient to economic tumult, bought a home just before prices spiked, have our own savings over and above our employer pensions, own a second small property where we house a family member who’s a senior living in poverty… I can’t look at my situation and say it makes any sense for the taxpayer to be paying me OAS on top of all of that when I retire. I’d rather see OAS steered more towards those with low incomes. Senior poverty is real, pervasive, and pretty ugly to see up close.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I’m exactly in the category of people who would lose out were OAS to become more stringently means tested- and personally I’m completely fine with that. I’m one of the shrinking proportion of younger Canadians who are ‘set’. Defined benefit pension for both myself and my wife, good solid jobs that are resilient to economic tumult, bought a home just before prices spiked, have our own savings over and above our employer pensions, own a second small property where we house a family member who’s a senior living in poverty… I can’t look at my situation and say it makes any sense for the taxpayer to be paying me OAS on top of all of that when I retire. I’d rather see OAS steered more towards those with low incomes. Senior poverty is real, pervasive, and pretty ugly to see up close.

I wish more people thought like you.

90k individual retirement income as the threshold to start clawing back welfare is irresponsible and indefensible fiscal policy.