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

[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.

 

[Czech_pivo]

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.

Because, as I stated before - it was 1 of the 2 pillars that basically treated all CDN's the same in the past. OAS and Health Care. It's looking like its only going to be Health Care going forward.

If its going to be stripped away from so many Canadians, I will say again the OAS needs to be scrapped entirely and rolled into GIS - Guaranteed Income Supplement and treat it as a welfare program going forward.

OAS is overwhelmingly based on length of time living in Canada, over 18 to 65, which speaks to 'everyone', not a select number of people. I would suggest that well over 97-98% of all retirees receive some form of it today. That speaks to it being 'for all' - just like health care.

 

[YZT580]

Because, as I stated before - it was 1 of the 2 pillars that basically treated all CDN's the same in the past. OAS and Health Care. It's looking like its only going to be Health Care going forward.

If its going to be stripped away from so many Canadians, I will say again the OAS needs to be scrapped entirely and rolled into GIS - Guaranteed Income Supplement and treat it as a welfare program going forward.

OAS is overwhelmingly based on length of time living in Canada, over 18 to 65, which speaks to 'everyone', not a select number of people. I would suggest that well over 97-98% of all retirees receive some form of it today. That speaks to it being 'for all' - just like health care.

I will actually vote for that with the caveat that all GIS applies to Canadian citizens or residents who have been in Canada for a minimum length of time and have worked here as well and not just for 6 months. It was mentioned before and it is a valid issue. We shouldn't be subsidizing someone's grandparents who came over in their 50s and haven't worked anymore than we should be boosting my income; applying the same logic that my withdrawals are depriving others.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I will actually vote for that with the caveat that all GIS applies to Canadian citizens or residents who have been in Canada for a minimum length of time and have worked here as well and not just for 6 months. It was mentioned before and it is a valid issue. We shouldn't be subsidizing someone's grandparents who came over in their 50s and haven't worked anymore than we should be boosting my income; applying the same logic that my withdrawals are depriving others.

Agreed - not looking to have have that kind of money rolled to those who have not contributed in a meaningful way to Canadian society.