Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Czech_pivo]

Yup. There’s nothing wrong with the kids. They’re as smart and as hard working as previous generations. But they face a reality of less relative return on their investments in work and education. The middle class dreams of their parents are denied to many more of them than ever before.

Watch this click - I sent it to family friends who’s son is in his 3rd yr as an Electrician apprentice.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Not just politicians, I have private sector friends whose whole/majority of post work subsistence is based on real estate. A crash in the market would destroy they're ability to retire.

The death and destruction of the private sector pension is criminal IMHO.

The removal of the Defined Benefit requirement plan was kicked to the family jewels for many in the private sector. Having a CPP that was set up to only cover 25% of some ‘avantage manufacturing wage’ has been another kick at those same jewels. The slow, long delayed, move to cover 33% is still not enough. It eventually should move up to cover 40% and the upper salary range should go up to 125k.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think you and others here have done a good job articulating who gains and loses from the status quo, and from a hypothetical major correction in the market. I don’t see much disagreement here on the basic facts of this.

Stepping back and taking a societal view, a big part of the problem I think is that, following the massive run ups of say a decade ago, we now have a whole generation that has entered the workforce and is at the right place in life to be starting families, but with the now much inflated housing prices, they face massive, massive barriers to entry. The inaccessibility of ownership in many places leaves them caught in the rent trap, which has itself inflated considerably.

It’s not good, generally, to have up and coming generations cut off from the dream everyone had up to their parents and which their parents still believe in and express to them. It’s harmful to social and political cohesion to have that large a cohort seeing the ladders pulled up behind the last crew who climbed…

Stagnant housing prices coupled with inflation will eventually reduce this problem, but on a generational time frame. Not soon enough to help the young couples in their mid to late 20s, nor those coming up behind. Or even the tail end millennials who took longer to get well paid careers established.

A major correction downwards would have an impact, but it would need a major trigger of a lot of people trying to sell inflated supply into a market that has seen demand destruction from prices too high for too long. I don’t know what such a trigger would be. And How much would such a major correction actually hit livable family residences versus bachelor or shoebox condos that nobody’s starting a family in anyway? The housing market is far from monolithic…

Damned if I know how Canada balances the policy challenges here - affordability, social cohesion, reliance on home equity, etc etc…

Here's an article out of the US today from the CNBC business site. Same concerns/issues are being felt south of the border.....

'This bargain is eroding': Inside the youngest generations' view of the American Dream

Gen Z is at a tipping point, some economists say: the first U.S. generation in living memory where the majority may be unable to achieve the American Dream.

www.cnbc.com

‘This bargain is eroding’: Inside the youngest generations’ view of the American Dream​

 

[YZT580]

Our country has many problems. Paying OAS to high income elderly Canadians is absolutely one of them. It’s not Robin Hood-eaque ‘steal from the rich’ to change the net income threshold to receive OAS. Not paying high income seniors welfare is simply not paying high income seniors welfare. Why should high income seniors receive welfare?

In actuality, I agree with you but singling that out is not the road to recovery as I have tried to point out. It is a distraction. My 12000 is not the reason why the average house in Canada is 847,000 whilst south of us it is 360,000. And explain to me why we were still sending money to support China up until recently; if we aren't still doing so. Explain why hospitals are actually laying off nursing staff and closing facilities whilst crying poor when they are the beneficiaries of much of our GDP. No my friend, you can rant and rave all you want about OAS but that freeing up that portion of the budget isn't going to solve a damn thing.

 

[Eaglelord17]

so your solution is to take from the rich and give to the poor. Mind if I call you Robin? That has never worked in all the centuries it has been tried. All you end up with is more poor people. In 2020 the median family income was 73000. In 2024 it was 65000. In the States the comparable figures are 67,000 for 2020 and 83,700 for 2024. We aren't losing because of OAS we are losing because our laws and government policies are keeping you poor whilst they enrich their friends. We are losing because when two separate governments offered to buy into our resources ours told them to get lost that there wasn't a business case for it. We introduced regulations to prohibit larger ships from sailing in our waters and made sure that there would be no product to buy anyway because there was no way to get it there. The saga of the F35 could be applied to every major purchase or development that has been suggested. We have allowed ourselves to be hijacked by every indigenous group that wants to file a complaint even though the many of them are nothing more than a large family group. And you dare blame a bunch of old folks for the mess we are in. It is time to wake up and face the truth. We are collectively driving this country into irrelevance. We have a PM who keeps grabbing the football away from Charlie Brown. His agreement with Alberta is proof of that. Here, go build a pipeline but we will make you tack on an impossibly expensive capture process and we will still hit you with a carbon bill. Yes Altair, I am trolling.

Actually policies that protect the low and middle class actually do work and is what created the greatest economic times in history (the late 1800s-1980s). Without government interference the people would mainly be working slaves forced to work for peanuts with no rights, no protections, and violent evil owners who saw you as a expendable replaceable cog in the machine.

Another important thing to understand about why those laws came into place was because people were about at the point of hanging the rich. If they keep growing their wealth well not bringing up everyone else along the way, it might encourage the same reaction again.

I am not Robin Hood for believing that the rich shouldn’t be pulling much farther ahead on wealth and leaving everyone else struggling. These corporate parasites are slowly but steadily eating away at both the working class and the companies they run.

A simple way to fix it could be to have any bonus paid out to the executives to be paid a equal amount to all employees (i.e. your bonus was 4x your salary, everyone else in the company gets the same). It is fair and simple as the people who run the company didn’t achieve what happened for that company in a vacuum, rather it is a team effort that many times happens in spite of the people running it.

In actuality, I agree with you but singling that out is not the road to recovery as I have tried to point out. It is a distraction. My 12000 is not the reason why the average house in Canada is 847,000 whilst south of us it is 360,000. And explain to me why we were still sending money to support China up until recently; if we aren't still doing so. Explain why hospitals are actually laying off nursing staff and closing facilities whilst crying poor when they are the beneficiaries of much of our GDP. No my friend, you can rant and rave all you want about OAS but that freeing up that portion of the budget isn't going to solve a damn thing.

It is a start to fixing things. I never said it was the magic silver bullet, but it is a step in the right direction. Not trying to fix things is just accepting defeat which is why I referenced fiddling on the titanic.

Seems like a lot of older people just want to keep living the high life without regard for the damage they are doing to the future because they will not have to deal with the consequences.

 

[YZT580]

Actually policies that protect the low and middle class actually do work and is what created the greatest economic times in history (the late 1800s-1980s). Without government interference the people would mainly be working slaves forced to work for peanuts with no rights, no protections, and violent evil owners who saw you as a expendable replaceable cog in the machine.

Another important thing to understand about why those laws came into place was because people were about at the point of hanging the rich. If they keep growing their wealth well not bringing up everyone else along the way, it might encourage the same reaction again.

I am not Robin Hood for believing that the rich shouldn’t be pulling much farther ahead on wealth and leaving everyone else struggling. These corporate parasites are slowly but steadily eating away at both the working class and the companies they run.

A simple way to fix it could be to have any bonus paid out to the executives to be paid a equal amount to all employees (i.e. your bonus was 4x your salary, everyone else in the company gets the same). It is fair and simple as the people who run the company didn’t achieve what happened for that company in a vacuum, rather it is a team effort that many times happens in spite of the people running it.


It is a start to fixing things. I never said it was the magic silver bullet, but it is a step in the right direction. Not trying to fix things is just accepting defeat which is why I referenced fiddling on the titanic.

Seems like a lot of older people just want to keep living the high life without regard for the damage they are doing to the future because they will not have to deal with the consequences.

If Karl Marx were alive he would be proud of you. Every one who has earned wealth has done it by putting their efforts into earning it and they have paid a price for it. They have sacrificed time, often times family, health to achieve a goal. The same can be said to a certain extent about the 3rd generation ones. Very few are content and there are any number who are featured in the news with one problem or another. Prince Andrew is probably a great illustration of that. But back to that first generation. In return for those efforts they have provided a decent living for any number of families. Yes they ran sweatshops until minimum wages made them unprofitable. Cheers for the government. What did they accomplish? Those sweatshops are now in Bangladesh and China and the people who worked in them were left unemployed. My in-laws went through that and were forced to move into her father's home for years instead of their own home which they had to sell. So there are two sides or more to government interference.
You talk about all us rich retired folks enjoying government largesse. Many of us are still supplementing our kids. Many have taken out mortgages to facilitate their buying a home. Some have put in basement apartments so the kids could move back. Sure they go to Florida for two months in the winter. So what? The money I don't spend on gas going to work and the suits that are no longer required would cover much of those expenses and downsizing into a townhouse covers the rest: which is what many have done. There will always be poor people for any number of reasons. I just did a search for seniors earning in Canada. The median income is 31000 after taxes so you aren't chasing after a whole lot of people. Since the ceiling is 148,000 I would suggest that re-setting the roof at 125,000 might cover the annual meal costs on CanForce 1.(sarcasm) There are bigger and more blatant wastes to pursue.

 

[brihard]

In actuality, I agree with you

Do you?

but singling that out is not the road to recovery as I have tried to point out. It is a distraction.

I have not claimed it is. I’ve said it’s one of many problems.

My 12000 is not the reason why the average house in Canada is 847,000 whilst south of us it is 360,000.

I have not claimed that particular unjustified spending is causal to housing prices. You’re swinging at a straw man.

And explain to me why we were still sending money to support China up until recently; if we aren't still doing so.

We should not be, but that’s not what was being discussed. However, see point 1, “one of many problems”.

Explain why hospitals are actually laying off nursing staff and closing facilities whilst crying poor when they are the beneficiaries of much of our GDP.

Ask your provincial government.

No my friend, you can rant and rave all you want about OAS

Who’s ranting and raving? I’ve been nothing but calm on this, and I’ve kept it narrowly topical.

but that freeing up that portion of the budget isn't going to solve a damn thing.

Freeing up that portion of the budget would solve the equivalent dollar value’s worth of things. What those specific things would or should be is above my pay grade. Though I’d suggest that maybe a portion of it could go to boost OAS or GIS at much lower income brackets. I’ve seen senior poverty and it sucks. Or we could buy a train or something, I dunno.

 

[Czech_pivo]

If Karl Marx were alive he would be proud of you. Every one who has earned wealth has done it by putting their efforts into earning it and they have paid a price for it. They have sacrificed time, often times family, health to achieve a goal. The same can be said to a certain extent about the 3rd generation ones. Very few are content and there are any number who are featured in the news with one problem or another. Prince Andrew is probably a great illustration of that. But back to that first generation. In return for those efforts they have provided a decent living for any number of families. Yes they ran sweatshops until minimum wages made them unprofitable. Cheers for the government. What did they accomplish? Those sweatshops are now in Bangladesh and China and the people who worked in them were left unemployed. My in-laws went through that and were forced to move into her father's home for years instead of their own home which they had to sell. So there are two sides or more to government interference.
You talk about all us rich retired folks enjoying government largesse. Many of us are still supplementing our kids. Many have taken out mortgages to facilitate their buying a home. Some have put in basement apartments so the kids could move back. Sure they go to Florida for two months in the winter. So what? The money I don't spend on gas going to work and the suits that are no longer required would cover much of those expenses and downsizing into a townhouse covers the rest: which is what many have done. There will always be poor people for any number of reasons. I just did a search for seniors earning in Canada. The median income is 31000 after taxes so you aren't chasing after a whole lot of people. Since the ceiling is 148,000 I would suggest that re-setting the roof at 125,000 might cover the annual meal costs on CanForce 1.(sarcasm) There are bigger and more blatant wastes to pursue.

The reality is that OAS was given to all individuals in the past - regardless of their income level - and now, with a growing senior population and many of those who paid attention to the 'save for tomorrow' advertisements put out by the banks/insurance/investment companies, the call is to pull that money back from them. Sorry, you saved and sacrificed and invested wisely and now you won't get anything from the government when you retire.

I've said my peace on here before about this and I'm not going to go through it all again.

If OAS is going to be changed/altered then I believe that it should be completely rolled into the GIS program and the 'participation award' that is OAS should be scrapped completely. A new line is drawn under seniors who earn a set threshold and they are given the 'Government Income Supplement' and it should be called that - 'a supplement' because we the taxpayer will be supplementing your income going forward.

Lastly, I also believe that the enhanced GIS should be somehow linked directly to the length of time one has lived in Canada. I am not in agreement that someone who was brought here in some family reunification plan at the age of 57 or 62 or 65 should be given GIS at this new enhanced level. This money should be paid to someone who has been here for the 40yrs as laid out in the OAS in order to receive the enhanced GIS amount.

Finally - just so we are clear in understanding actual numbers - only 10.3% of seniors have an income above 80K/yr - which is 13k BELOW the amount of income when OAS starts to be clawed back. For those over 90k, its 7.3% of the population.

There are 8million individuals over the age of 65 in Canada.​

That 7.3% represents only 584,000 people.​

That's 5.2billion if you strike them all off from receiving any OAS (meaning 0$ OAS paid to them) if their income goes above 90k/yr​

If you use 80k/yr as the threshold, then its 10.3%, which is 802,000 people​

That's 7.2billion if you strike them all off from receiving any OAS​

​

What needs to be understood is that the above numbers are completely arbitrary. If an individual is part of the 7.3% population earning 91K or above has the OAS taken completely away from them, then their overall income will fall by 9K - meaning their income would now by 82k/yr, which would entitle them to OAS if its only for those below 90K. They would still receive OAS, just 8k instead of 9k/yr and their income would be 90k instead of 91k. The same thing would occur if you move OAS clawback back down to 80k. If someone is earning 81k and they have their OAS taken away, their income would fall to 72k - which means that they would receive OAS of 8k instead of 9k to bring them to the 80k maximum.

 

[Eaglelord17]

If Karl Marx were alive he would be proud of you. Every one who has earned wealth has done it by putting their efforts into earning it and they have paid a price for it. They have sacrificed time, often times family, health to achieve a goal. The same can be said to a certain extent about the 3rd generation ones. Very few are content and there are any number who are featured in the news with one problem or another. Prince Andrew is probably a great illustration of that. But back to that first generation. In return for those efforts they have provided a decent living for any number of families. Yes they ran sweatshops until minimum wages made them unprofitable. Cheers for the government. What did they accomplish? Those sweatshops are now in Bangladesh and China and the people who worked in them were left unemployed. My in-laws went through that and were forced to move into her father's home for years instead of their own home which they had to sell. So there are two sides or more to government interference.
You talk about all us rich retired folks enjoying government largesse. Many of us are still supplementing our kids. Many have taken out mortgages to facilitate their buying a home. Some have put in basement apartments so the kids could move back. Sure they go to Florida for two months in the winter. So what? The money I don't spend on gas going to work and the suits that are no longer required would cover much of those expenses and downsizing into a townhouse covers the rest: which is what many have done. There will always be poor people for any number of reasons. I just did a search for seniors earning in Canada. The median income is 31000 after taxes so you aren't chasing after a whole lot of people. Since the ceiling is 148,000 I would suggest that re-setting the roof at 125,000 might cover the annual meal costs on CanForce 1.(sarcasm) There are bigger and more blatant wastes to pursue.

You talk as those those who go to work 40+hours a week aren’t sacrificing as well.

You are talking about the mythical hardworking man who managed to achieve wealth against all odds. It’s a myth, in existence to keep your average joe believing they too can be part of it if they work hard enough.

Most don’t earn wealth, they make it through others efforts. By buying up the competition making it so you’re the only one on the playing field. Not too many mom and pop shops kicking around these days, it is all giant conglomerates who crush innovation and leave people with very limited choices. Anyone or thing which challenges those oligarchs gets crushed, either bought out, sued into the ground, price gouged until they fail, or legislated out of position.

You talk about supplementing your kids, good for you. I am talking about the working supplementing you through paying welfare to you in the form of OAS.

That supplementation shouldn’t also need to exist, we should be able to live a reasonable lifestyle if you work 40 hours a week.

The reality is that OAS was given to all individuals in the past - regardless of their income level - and now, with a growing senior population and many of those who paid attention to the 'save for tomorrow' advertisements put out by the banks/insurance/investment companies, the call is to pull that money back from them. Sorry, you saved and sacrificed and invested wisely and now you won't get anything from the government when you retire.

I've said my peace on here before about this and I'm not going to go through it all again.

If OAS is going to be changed/altered then I believe that it should be completely rolled into the GIS program and the 'participation award' that is OAS should be scrapped completely. A new line is drawn under seniors who earn a set threshold and they are given the 'Government Income Supplement' and it should be called that - 'a supplement' because we the taxpayer will be supplementing your income going forward.

Lastly, I also believe that the enhanced GIS should be somehow linked directly to the length of time one has lived in Canada. I am not in agreement that someone who was brought here in some family reunification plan at the age of 57 or 62 or 65 should be given GIS at this new enhanced level. This money should be paid to someone who has been here for the 40yrs as laid out in the OAS in order to receive the enhanced GIS amount.

Finally - just so we are clear in understanding actual numbers - only 10.3% of seniors have an income above 80K/yr - which is 13k BELOW the amount of income when OAS starts to be clawed back. For those over 90k, its 7.3% of the population.

There are 8million individuals over the age of 65 in Canada.​

That 7.3% represents only 584,000 people.​

That's 5.2billion if you strike them all off from receiving any OAS (meaning 0$ OAS paid to them) if their income goes above 90k/yr​

If you use 80k/yr as the threshold, then its 10.3%, which is 802,000 people​

That's 7.2billion if you strike them all off from receiving any OAS​

​

What needs to be understood is that the above numbers are completely arbitrary. If an individual is part of the 7.3% population earning 91K or above has the OAS taken completely away from them, then their overall income will fall by 9K - meaning their income would now by 82k/yr, which would entitle them to OAS if its only for those below 90K. They would still receive OAS, just 8k instead of 9k/yr and their income would be 90k instead of 91k. The same thing would occur if you move OAS clawback back down to 80k. If someone is earning 81k and they have their OAS taken away, their income would fall to 72k - which means that they would receive OAS of 8k instead of 9k to bring them to the 80k maximum.

80k wouldn’t be anywhere near where I would put OAS limitations in. Personally it would be at the 50k range for a individual or 80k for household income (and yes I would consider household income, seniors get to income split, already a huge boon above your average Canadian).

It’s welfare originally intended to allow seniors who would never have been able to retire to not have to work anymore, or to work much less hours. If your able to afford trips to Florida for months or supplement your child's income your making too much for me to be paying for it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The reality is that OAS was given to all individuals in the past - regardless of their income level - and now, with a growing senior population and many of those who paid attention to the 'save for tomorrow' advertisements put out by the banks/insurance/investment companies, the call is to pull that money back from them. Sorry, you saved and sacrificed and invested wisely and now you won't get anything from the government when you retire.

If you have done all that correctly why do you need a gov hand out ?

 

[Czech_pivo]

If you have done all that correctly why do you need a gov hand out ?

In the past OAS and Health Care were the 2 pillars where all Canadians were supposedly treated the same.

If OAS is going to be stripped away from the 'all of us' approach to another, then it should be killed off entirely and rolled into the Guaranteed Income Supplement and have it be represented formally as a government hand out.

I guess we are going down the path of a single pillar, health care, where all Canadians, regardless of income, will be treated equally.

 

[Czech_pivo]

80k wouldn’t be anywhere near where I would put OAS limitations in. Personally it would be at the 50k range for a individual or 80k for household income (and yes I would consider household income, seniors get to income split, already a huge boon above your average Canadian).

It’s welfare originally intended to allow seniors who would never have been able to retire to not have to work anymore, or to work much less hours. If your able to afford trips to Florida for months or supplement your child's income your making too much for me to be paying for it.

Under your proposal, the range would be 41k - because OAS is 9k a yr. So an individual's income (CPP + pension) can't be above 41k in order for them to receive the 9k a year in OAS.

 

[Halifax Tar]

In the past OAS and Health Care were the 2 pillars where all Canadians were supposedly treated the same.

If OAS is going to be stripped away from the 'all of us' approach to another, then it should be killed off entirely and rolled into the Guaranteed Income Supplement and have it be represented formally as a government hand out.

Agreed.

I guess we are going down the path of a single pillar, health care, where all Canadians, regardless of income, will be treated equally.

Unless you can afford to go else where, you know like our leaders and 'elite'.

 

[brihard]

In the past OAS and Health Care were the 2 pillars where all Canadians were supposedly treated the same.

If OAS is going to be stripped away from the 'all of us' approach to another, then it should be killed off entirely and rolled into the Guaranteed Income Supplement and have it be represented formally as a government hand out.

I guess we are going down the path of a single pillar, health care, where all Canadians, regardless of income, will be treated equally.

OAS already reduces to nil at a certain income level. It doesn’t go to everyone. The policy position being argued by some of us here is that as a form of welfare, the income cutoff should be reduced so it isn’t paid to high income seniors.

 

[dapaterson]

The last CPC government attempted minor reform (no pun intended) by raising the qualifying age to 67.

Raising eligibility age progressively and decreasing indexing of the cutoff levels over time are probably the most palatable options available; unfortunately, those options also permit future governments to reverse the changes before full implementation.

Essentially, governments have to choose between boiling the frog or tearing off the band aid.

 

[Czech_pivo]

OAS already reduces to nil at a certain income level. It doesn’t go to everyone. The policy position being argued by some of us here is that as a form of welfare, the income cutoff should be reduced so it isn’t paid to high income seniors.

Understood - and I pointed out that only 7.3% of seniors earn over 90k a year. That number of 7.3% would be slightly peer at the 93k level where the clawback begins.
We are really talking g about a very small subset of the population- like 500,000 people.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Under your proposal, the range would be 41k - because OAS is 9k a yr. So an individual's income (CPP + pension) can't be above 41k in order for them to receive the 9k a year in OAS.

Sure, have it start clawing back at 41k and fully end at 50k, I am perfectly fine with that.

Considering that is still more than you make on a minimum wage job at 40hrs a week it is a reasonable threshold. That would keep the money going to those who actually need it and keep it out of the hands of those who don't.

Currently those making the equivalent of 46$ a hour are getting welfare before it starts getting clawed back. It ends at 152k or the equivalent of approximately 76$ a hour. Why does someone making that much believe they are entitled to welfare? It blows my mind this is even a discussion that needs to happen.