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.

The issue with means testing in retirement is that it just changes the math for the tax/retirement strategists. One thing I've been playing with in my head is to make it a 2 stage payout/clawback process, with the first stage tied to pre-retirement tax filing/ CPP entitlement. Set it as an inverse so that people that have earned such they've maxed CPP have their OAS benefit reduced to 50%. The remaining 50% is subject to a recovery tax based on in retirement tax filings.

 

[Czech_pivo]

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.

I know that in France having 1 child increases your French pension by 5% and having 3 or more by 10%. I assume that having 2 kids increases it by 7%. This can be spread across both sets of parents but typically its fully allocated to the Mother.

The average French pension is 1,650 Euro NET a month, which is about 2,600$ CAD, again that is NET of taxes. The average monthly CPP is 850$ CAD a month, but taxes have to be paid, possibly.

France's pension plan is geared to replace 50% of your income up to a ceiling of just over 41,100 Euro (roughly 65,000$ CAD). Our newly revamped CPP is set to cover 33% of a max salary of 81,200$ CAD.

 

[ytz]

There's different ways to tackle the issue. But it would help to just define basic goals.

I want OAS to be no greater than 2% of GDP. Preferably 1%. And I don't want any senior to live in poverty just because of a lack of income. I do think with those goals, some kind of min income system can be crafted. And CPP itself should be adjusted to ensure that the average working person will have a pension above LICO.

Right now I'm not even sure what the goals are. GIS doesn't fully alleviate poverty. And people will generous DB pensions, like a lot of us in the CAF, are getting OAS for beer money. What exactly are we doing here?

 

[YZT580]

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.

we have done it to ourselves and now we can't afford to pay the piper. Without getting into the arguments re: the destruction of the family and family values, government is the least efficient manager of money that there is. Visit any mennonite rural community and you will see a dottage cottage on each farm for the parents. Visit many countries outside of 'advanced' European countries and you will discover a system whereby family take care of their own. It isn't a perfect world as the degree of care depends upon the family income but it does work. But we westerners elected to get the government to universally take over the management of seniors. The average senior we discovered is subsidized to the tune of 48000 a year for housing yet there is no benefit if I put in a tiny house for my parents. It is all money out as well so I will pay for my parents and a portion of the cost of your parents as well because you are too cheap to look after your own except for Sunday dinner every 2 or 3 weeks if they are lucky. I don't have a solution but just part of the problem as I see it.

 

[ytz]

I wish more people thought like you.

I know a lot of younger people who think like him. Personally, I have never done any long term budgeting with OAS in mind. I don't even really know what OAS is. I ask my parents, cause they get it. Heck, I know people who plan without CPP in mind because they don't think it'll be around for them. My cynicism hasn't hit that level yet.

However, there's quite a few people who will always turn this into a question of entitlement. "I worked hard. I deserve it." Yeah, well so does that 30 yr old single mom and she doesn't have anywhere the support or cheap housing you did.

This is why I say we need to get explicit with what the goals of these programs are. No room for emotions in this discussion.

 

[YZT580]

I know a lot of younger people who think like him. Personally, I have never done any long term budgeting with OAS in mind. I don't even really know what OAS is. I ask my parents, cause they get it. Heck, I know people who plan without CPP in mind because they don't think it'll be around for them. My cynicism hasn't hit that level yet.

However, there's quite a few people who will always turn this into a question of entitlement. "I worked hard. I deserve it." Yeah, well so does that 30 yr old single mom and she doesn't have anywhere the support or cheap housing you did.

This is why I say we need to get explicit with what the goals of these programs are. No room for emotions in this discussion.

maybe, but as long as Ottawa is paying more for illegals than it is for seniors.....

 

[Czech_pivo]

There's different ways to tackle the issue. But it would help to just define basic goals.

I want OAS to be no greater than 2% of GDP. Preferably 1%. And I don't want any senior to live in poverty just because of a lack of income. I do think with those goals, some kind of min income system can be crafted. And CPP itself should be adjusted to ensure that the average working person will have a pension above LICO.

Right now I'm not even sure what the goals are. GIS doesn't fully alleviate poverty. And people will generous DB pensions, like a lot of us in the CAF, are getting OAS for beer money. What exactly are we doing here?

I don't want any OAS.

I'm open to discuss revamping/expanding the GIS to include support for individuals who were lifetime lower income earners. If someone worked 25, 30, 35, 40yrs as a low income earner, 100% agree that their income needs supplementing to give them a dignified standard of living after working their entire life.

I'm open to expand the coverage of CPP to those individuals who wish to voluntarily increase their CPP contributions throughout any point of their working years that would lead to a proportional increase to the final CPP payments. A lot of the remaining Defined Benefits pension allow for this option now. I'm open to allowing individuals to 'purchase' lost CPP contribution years because they were raising kids or looking after a sick spouse, kid, parent, family member. I'm open to doing something like what France does, increasing by X% CPP payments to mothers for having 1 kid, 2 kids, 3 kids, etc.

It is not uncommon for immigrants to bring over their parents into Canada after say age 55, obtain PR status and then after the 10 years to qualify for OAS, they start obtaining OAS or GIS - this is WRONG and should not be allowed to occur.

For both OAS and GIS there needs to be a means test that if the individual comes to Canada after the age of 45 under some parent/grandparent reunification plan and that individual does not work 10 of years in Canada, (the time period from 45-55yrs old), that they do no qualify for OAS or GIS - full stop when they turn 65 or any other year unless than have worked for 10yrs, equal to the 10yrs of residency required to obtain OAS and GIS.