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

[Remius]

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

That is a debunked claim.

 

[IKnowNothing]

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.

Best light to shine on the whole farce.

CCB starts getting clawed back at 39k household income. OAS at 90k personal income.

As to not budgeting for it- I'm in the same boat, but I know that among a decent number of well enough off millennials/ younger X's that planning to game the OAS/GIS clawback numbers is informing their RRSP vs TFSA math

 

[Cloud Cover]

That is a debunked claim.

No, it isn’t.
The average cost to support an immigrant citizen from the 3rd world is astronomical to the point that their financial contributions to the country (if any) will never be fully repaid.

A senior living in Canada is a person who has already paid, sustained and contributed much more than their fare share along the way and across usually two full generations.

The best immigrants are the very few that arrive and accept very little (event for a short period), and get on with a life where they contribute or at the least cost nothing than a citizen born here.

If Canada cut its long term support for economically dependent immigrants (as it should), very few would come here. In fact many would leave because of the high cost of living. This would be ideal because of their high economic cost and absolute drag on productivity.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Best light to shine on the whole farce.

CCB starts getting clawed back at 39k household income. OAS at 90k personal income.

As to not budgeting for it- I'm in the same boat, but I know that among a decent number of well enough off millennials/ younger X's that gaming the clawback number is informing their RRSP vs TFSA decision.

Being in your early 20's and going full tilt on the TFSA, ETF's geared to NASDAQ, S&P500, TSX60, AI Tech, Chips, Pharm and forgot the RSP or only do minimal RSP. Its a solid overall approach.

7k/yr into a TFSA for 40yrs at 8%/yr average compounded gives you 1.2 million - tax free money that you can use in manner possible when your 65yrs years old.

If you more that 1.2 million into a structure plan at 65 that provides you a steady 4% dividend payment through that year, that's 48,000$/yr tax free income. Say you get another 20k/yr in CPP/OAS payments, you're now sitting at 68,000/yr or which only 20k/yr is seen as income, viola, your below the 22k/yr means test if your single for GIS in Canada.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Being in your early 20's and going full tilt on the TFSA, ETF's geared to NASDAQ, S&P500, TSX60, AI Tech, Chips, Pharm and forgot the RSP or only do minimal RSP. Its a solid overall approach.

7k/yr into a TFSA for 40yrs at 8%/yr average compounded gives you 1.2 million - tax free money that you can use in manner possible when your 65yrs years old.

If you more that 1.2 million into a structure plan at 65 that provides you a steady 4% dividend payment through that year, that's 48,000$/yr tax free income. Say you get another 20k/yr in CPP/OAS payments, you're now sitting at 68,000/yr or which only 20k/yr is seen as income, viola, your below the 22k/yr means test if your single for GIS in Canada.

Exactly. In my opinion that math should be based purely based on marginal tax rates vs investment returns, not working the system for handouts. But if they're there who can blame anyone.

Hence why the more I think about it the more I think OAS/GIS means testing should have a rear-word looking initial filter.

 

[Brad Sallows]

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.

The purpose of the fund is to provide retirement income to retirees, not to sustain itself. Understanding that to be the purpose leads to the question why we have a government-mandated fund that only looks after workers.

CPP could be shifted to defined contribution. Or the contributions could be eliminated, income taxes increased commensurately, and a lot of clag eliminated by reducing federal welfare to the elderly to OAS and GIS.

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.

Maybe other institutions want nothing to do with a responsibility to manage CPP directly. By observation, however, financial institutions clearly are eager for individuals to buy into the funds they manage.

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.

That's often cited as an excuse for CPP. All that's needed are compelled contributions to locked-in RPPs, probably with some limitations on high-risk products. People who fail to invest correctly are mainly people who treat investments like a piggy bank or do business with shady "investors". Those risks are easy to close off.

 

[ytz]

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

Credible evidence for this assertion?

 

[Remius]

No, it isn’t.

It is.

Do government-assisted refugees get more income support and benefits than Canadian pensioners do?

ircc.canada.ca

Fact check: Do refugees get more financial help than Canadian pensioners?

As Canada's new Liberal government moves forward with its plan to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year, false claims about how much money will be spent to support them have been circulating online.

www.ctvnews.ca

The average cost to support an immigrant citizen from the 3rd world is astronomical to the point that their financial contributions to the country (if any) will never be fully repaid.

A senior living in Canada is a person who has already paid, sustained and contributed much more than their fare share along the way and across usually two full generations.

The best immigrants are the very few that arrive and accept very little (event for a short period), and get on with a life where they contribute or at the least cost nothing than a citizen born here.

If Canada cut its long term support for economically dependent immigrants (as it should), very few would come here. In fact many would leave because of the high cost of living. This would be ideal because of their high economic cost and absolute drag on productivity.

I notice you are using “immigrant” as term to lump all migrants in.

Most immigrants are economic immigrants and need to be economically self sufficient when they get here.

Refugees and asylum seekers are another story but see above and links about the “pensioners myth”.

It’s fine to discuss the tax burden of any of those things as it is a valid talking point but debunked myths don’t help the argument.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The purpose of the fund is to provide retirement income to retirees, not to sustain itself. Understanding that to be the purpose leads to the question why we have a government-mandated fund that only looks after workers.

CPP could be shifted to defined contribution. Or the contributions could be eliminated, income taxes increased commensurately, and a lot of clag eliminated by reducing federal welfare to the elderly to OAS and GIS.

Maybe other institutions want nothing to do with a responsibility to manage CPP directly. By observation, however, financial institutions clearly are eager for individuals to buy into the funds they manage.

That's often cited as an excuse for CPP. All that's needed are compelled contributions to locked-in RPPs, probably with some limitations on high-risk products. People who fail to invest correctly are mainly people who treat investments like a piggy bank or do business with shady "investors". Those risks are easy to close off.

Those risks are NOT easily closed off because if they could be, some other country (ahem, US) would have already done so. Again, financial institutions want NOTHING to do with these individual contribution plans, the juice is NOT worth the squeeze to them. For example, minimum wage earner 'John' working 20hrs a week would be contributing 15$/week into their individual plan, the costs associated with that totally insignificant amount make it not economically feasible for the bank/investment firm at all.

 

[ytz]

No, it isn’t.

The exact quote was about paying "illegals" more than seniors.

 

[ytz]

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.

This is a problem with the immigration system. Not the senior care system. And you don't solve an immigration problem by making other problems elsewhere.

I'm familiar with this problem as an immigrant. Harper tried to solve this with the parental supervisa. Trudeau got rid of this to win votes. It's not even so much the income. Buying health insurance for seniors is expensive. And it's why most immigrants actually hated the supervisa. We can (and should) just go back to supervisas.

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.

I'm not quibbling on details here. Especially on a defence forum. My broader point here is that we (as a society) at least need to start discussing the goals of these programs and make sure they are met without blowing the bank. What blows my mind is that we're going to reach 3% of GDP with OAS and it's barely discussed. Instead we're spending exponentially more time discussing how many days a week mail should be delivered. It's like giving first aid by prioritizing paper cuts over gunshot wounds.

 

[YZT580]

The exact quote was about paying "illegals" more than seniors.

Toronto was putting immigrants/refugees up in the Novotel which at today's rates is 298 per night. At 300 a night that is 9000 a month (except February). The going rate in a subsidized senior's home the last I heard was 2400. So even if the Novotel gives them 2/3 off that is still more than a senior is allowed. Plus they get the food allowance.