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

[ytz]

What about those seniors living in 1+million homes but have an income below poverty levels? Should we subsidize them? They are sitting on a 1+million asset that will just go to their children eventually. Shouldn't their assets - all of their assets - be available to fund their retirement, their cost of living?

"Hoarding" actually becomes clear in this example. I don't know anybody in their 20s, 30s, 40s who own a bigger home than their parents, despite having successful careers (often more education and higher inflation adjusted incomes than their parents). Some raise kids in smaller homes than they grew up in. Yet all of them will get less in child benefits than their parents get in OAS. Imagine that. Grandparents getting subsidized vacations while kids get payouts insufficient to fully supply baby formula for the grandkids for a month (which now costs $50 for those who don't know).

 

[ytz]

@ytz gave you a much nicer and politically correct answer than I would have.

I'm often reminded of the "I'm entitled to my entitlements," quote whenever I discuss this with anybody over 50.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm often reminded of the "I'm entitled to my entitlements," quote whenever I discuss this with anybody over 50.

I hear it from my FIL all the time...

 

[PPCLI Guy]

They can enjoy the fruits of their labour. What we're questioning is why the rest of us should be subsidizing them. OAS was originally meant to keep seniors out of poverty. Not to fund vacations in Europe. Support programs even had asset tests decades ago. We got rid of those and give people with six figure incomes pogey. In any other context, that would be considered absurd.

As somebody on track for a $90k per year pension in a few years, I'm more than happy to say that me and anybody else in my income bracket shouldn't get a penny of OAS. There are many other priorities that need to be addressed in this country. Most notably child poverty which is now double that of seniors I believe. Infrastructure backlogs. The deficit. And defence spending. Absurd to defend welfare for the rich when the list of everything else we have to do is a mile long.

You will likely not be eligible for OS based on your pension income.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

What about those seniors living in 1+million homes but have an income below poverty levels? Should we subsidize them? They are sitting on a 1+million asset that will just go to their children eventually. Shouldn't their assets - all of their assets - be available to fund their retirement, their cost of living?

Why are so many of you convinced that government intervention into ownership of personal assets is appropriate, but not the intervention onto ownership of restricted weapons?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

We're now in this absurd situation where seniors who had good jobs with DB pensions can fly to Europe every year while collecting OAS, while seniors on GIS don't make enough to properly pay rent. Ridiculous.

False. DB pension oncome is income period. No OAS for most of them.

 

[Czech_pivo]

More akin to an old ant creating policies that take from young grasshoppers...



Public programs shouldn't have moral judgement. Also, shit happens, people can get sick. They have to support family. Etc. I think it's just flat out hard to administer for all that.

What we want is that seniors don't live in poverty and that the programs don't end up eating all the fiscal room in the federal budget. That isn't a difficult goal. End payments to those with high incomes. Boost payments to those with low incomes. No need to look at past earnings and all that jazz. You're 70 years old and file a tax return with 100k income? You don't need OAS. You're 70 years old and file an income of $20k? Maybe you need $10k to get you up to the LICO. Should be that simple.

BS
The old ant is mocked and ignored for its wisdom and knowledge. If the grasshopper won't listen and learn, then they deserve their fate.

Don't have seniors live in poverty, fine - their ALL of their assets are on the table, meaning their house. The state subsidizes income while they are alive but the added money to them is a 'loan' against the value of their assets - their home - and when they pass, the subsidized income paid to them is returned back to the government. It can even be interest free.

Lastly, I built an investing macro 20+yrs ago when TFSA's first came that I gave to TD Waterhouse for free when I was working for them (they used it for financial planning), that clearly, mathematically showed, that a 25yr was better off investing SOLELY in a TFSA instead of a RSP for 40yrs, investing in a high growth assets because when they turned 65yrs old virtually ALL of their income would be TAX FREE. They would only have their CPP and OAS income - thus they would qualify for GIS because they in essence would be defined as 'Low Income.' So, using your example of being 70yrs and filing an income of 20K and you 'need' 10k' to get you up to the LICO would be an utter folly. The Government needs to consider ALL assets - house and TFSA as well when considering this.

Remember - if you've got kids, have them max out their TFSA's before considering RSP (please consult your own financial planner as I'm not registered and you should do your own research). The goal of the TFSA SHOULD be for retirement planning - max it out, solid high growth ETF's and build it as high as possible so that you can live as much as possible TAX FREE from the government.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Why are so many of you convinced that government intervention into ownership of personal assets is appropriate, but not the intervention onto ownership of restricted weapons?

Who is saying we should take material possessions away ?

 

[Halifax Tar]

BS
The old ant is mocked and ignored for its wisdom and knowledge. If the grasshopper won't listen and learn, then they deserve their fate.

If the world/Canada/Society right now is the end result of the knowledge and wisdom of your generation I think it would have been better off being ignored.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Why are so many of you convinced that government intervention into ownership of personal assets is appropriate, but not the intervention onto ownership of restricted weapons?

I'm not.
I'm pointing out the situation where low income doesn't necessarily translate into no or little assets. I'm not ok with us taxpayers topping off a senior living in a 1 million dollar asset just because they have only an annual income of 20k.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Arguably they are hoarding the fruits of the laubours, which they really haven't earned either. They created all these social programs, underfunded and didn't maintain them for generations and they now expect the on coming generations cover that gap prop up their continued lavish lifestyle.

By they, you mean voters? And one gets to chose which policies apply to them? So policies enacted now that affect the previous year's voters should not apply to last year's voters?

Huge cognitive dissonance going on here.

But I guess if one (anyone) perpetually has a pitchfork and a burning torch in ones hands, then it is obvious that someone needs to be attacked and vilified

 

[Czech_pivo]

If the world/Canada/Society right now is the end result of the knowledge and wisdom of your generation I think it would have been better off being ignored.

LOL, I can honestly say that I 'don't represent 'my generation' (I'm only 56, so I'm not much older than you), as 'my' generation hasn't lived/worked in 5 countries, actually asks the question when making 'large' purchases - 'Do I really need this or do I just want this?'.

 

[Halifax Tar]

By they, you mean voters? And one gets to chose which policies apply to them? So policies enacted now that affect the previous year's voters should not apply to last year's voters?

Yes. Your Gov is your Gov if you voted for them or not.

Huge cognitive dissonance going on here.

But I guess if one (anyone) perpetually has a pitchfork and a burning torch in ones hands, then it is obvious that someone needs to be attacked and vilified

I have no idea what this means to me.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I'm not.
I'm pointing out the situation where low income doesn't necessarily translate into no or little assets. I'm not ok with us taxpayers topping off a senior living in a 1 million dollar asset just because they have only an annual income of 20k.

So if I'm not okay with student loans for students who have parents with million dollar assets (often called the family home). All people who own a home should be forced to sell it to fund their child's education. Not taxpayers.

That doesn't make much sense.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Who is saying we should take material possessions away ?

How else do you force "MFer seniors" to sell their assets in order to fund their retirement? No cottage, boat, etc for anyone who has retired?

 

[Altair]

So if I'm not okay with student loans for students who have parents with million dollar assets (often called the family home). All people who own a home should be forced to sell it to fund their child's education. Not taxpayers.

That doesn't make much sense.

Woe to the children with terrible parents.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I'm not.
I'm pointing out the situation where low income doesn't necessarily translate into no or little assets. I'm not ok with us taxpayers topping off a senior living in a 1 million dollar asset just because they have only an annual income of 20k.

So you are saying you believe in socialism as an organising principle for this country?

What other things that other taxpayers do should be vilified in the pursuit of Canadian pastime of always bringing down anyone who might be getting ahead....

Maybe we should attack the game and not the player. I am not a fan of the current rules governing OAS, and i will never be able to draw it. I do not however feel that "senior MFers" should be vilified because of ths.

 

[brihard]

What about those seniors living in 1+million homes but have an income below poverty levels? Should we subsidize them? They are sitting on a 1+million asset that will just go to their children eventually. Shouldn't their assets - all of their assets - be available to fund their retirement, their cost of living?

No; they shouldn’t be punished because the neighbourhood they spent their adulthood in jumped in price and their modest 1960s home now has a high knockdown value because of the lot it’s on. Why would we force them literally out of their homes? Home ownership is both a dream, and a social/community stabilizer. Attacking that would be both wrong, and untenable public policy.

 

[Halifax Tar]

How else do you force "MFer seniors" to sell their assets in order to fund their retirement? No cottage, boat, etc for anyone who has retired?

You don't. Its a generational moral failure.

Sacrifice is something we have become adverse to.

 

[Altair]

This conversation is very amusing.

Older Canadians sit in million dollar houses they bought at many times less than that worrying about what cottage or boat they might be asked to give up while telling younger Canadians to have more kids while they sit in small houses or rent while receiving a childcare subsidiaries that don't even come close to covering the time energy and money put into raising a child.

Meanwhile birth rates have plummeted to 1.25 children per women.

I hope everyone loves immigration. It's down now, but will need to come back at some point because otherwise we are shrinking fast.