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

[Fishbone Jones]

There is a difference between refusing to work and being unable to. Yes there are welfare grifters, but there is legitimate users as well.

Still OAS needs to be cut back, whether or not politicians have the balls to do that will remain to be seen. It is a political hand grenade (hence why it got to this point in the first place) as seniors vote and the majority of them receive it.

A society requires resources, labor, and cooperation to survive. From this viewpoint, it is unfair for "free-riders" to intentionally drain resources without giving anything back. Welfare systems, public roads, and healthcare are funded by the labor and taxes of the population. If too many people take without giving, the system collapses.

A major debate is over what counts as a contribution? Is it only paid economic labor? I'll argue that unpaid caregiving, raising children, and volunteering are vital contributions that keep society functioning, even if they don't generate tax revenue. A purely transactional society struggles to account for those who cannot contribute in traditional ways. Children, the elderly, and individuals with severe disabilities or illnesses often rely entirely on society's contributions to them. Modern ethical frameworks usually argue that these groups deserve care regardless of their economic output.

Ultimately, most modern societies try to strike a balance: they encourage and expect able-bodied individuals to contribute through work and civic duties, while maintaining a baseline safety net for those who are vulnerable or temporarily unable to participate.

 

[Altair]

A society requires resources, labor, and cooperation to survive. From this viewpoint, it is unfair for "free-riders" to intentionally drain resources without giving anything back. Welfare systems, public roads, and healthcare are funded by the labor and taxes of the population. If too many people take without giving, the system collapses.

A major debate is over what counts as a contribution? Is it only paid economic labor? I'll argue that unpaid caregiving, raising children, and volunteering are vital contributions that keep society functioning, even if they don't generate tax revenue. A purely transactional society struggles to account for those who cannot contribute in traditional ways. Children, the elderly, and individuals with severe disabilities or illnesses often rely entirely on society's contributions to them. Modern ethical frameworks usually argue that these groups deserve care regardless of their economic output.

Ultimately, most modern societies try to strike a balance: they encourage and expect able-bodied individuals to contribute through work and civic duties, while maintaining a baseline safety net for those who are vulnerable or temporarily unable to participate.

I don't say this often, but I agree with you completely.

But if its way too hard to differentiate between the free riders and those who contribute in other ways or are disabled, why not just differentiate using income?

You make more than XX,XXX in retirement and you don't get anything. Would save the system and ensure those who may not have paid income tax for X many years still get covered.

 

[Czech_pivo]

A society requires resources, labor, and cooperation to survive. From this viewpoint, it is unfair for "free-riders" to intentionally drain resources without giving anything back. Welfare systems, public roads, and healthcare are funded by the labor and taxes of the population. If too many people take without giving, the system collapses.

A major debate is over what counts as a contribution? Is it only paid economic labor? I'll argue that unpaid caregiving, raising children, and volunteering are vital contributions that keep society functioning, even if they don't generate tax revenue. A purely transactional society struggles to account for those who cannot contribute in traditional ways. Children, the elderly, and individuals with severe disabilities or illnesses often rely entirely on society's contributions to them. Modern ethical frameworks usually argue that these groups deserve care regardless of their economic output.

Ultimately, most modern societies try to strike a balance: they encourage and expect able-bodied individuals to contribute through work and civic duties, while maintaining a baseline safety net for those who are vulnerable or temporarily unable to participate.

Dude well said.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

You make more than XX,XXX in retirement and you don't get anything.

So good planning and sacrifice is now a wrong?

Punish me because I've never been to a resort, never smoked, drink very little, and drive a 2008 car?

 

[Altair]

So good planning and sacrifice is now a wrong?

Punish me because I've never been to a resort, never smoked, drink very little, and drive a 2008 car?

....Alright, lets do it the other way I guess.

If you make under XX,XXX you get nothing.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So good planning and sacrifice is now a wrong?

Punish me because I've never been to a resort, never smoked, drink very little, and drive a 2008 car?

I see your point. We want you fund this for your life but never get to use the benefit of it.

Am I close ?

 

[Eaglelord17]

So good planning and sacrifice is now a wrong?

Punish me because I've never been to a resort, never smoked, drink very little, and drive a 2008 car?

How are you being punished by not paying you welfare? A social safety net/benefits do basically reward poor planning in some cases. However society is better off with that net as the alternative is lots of dead/homeless seniors.

The intent behind OAS originally was to help seniors who couldn’t afford to retire/reduce the amount of hours they would have to work. It wasn’t supposed to be free money for wealthy people.

If you want to be a socialist and just pay everyone money fine, how about everyone receive OAS level incomes then? I am sure everyone else would appreciate it and it is just as fair as giving OAS to seniors simply for having lived in the country for at least 10 years.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I wasn't anywhere near the topic of welfare, just OAS.
Again with the "wealthy" crap.....some people didnt squander all their money on trips, tattoos, and hookers, but saved and invested it to make a nice retirement income.
Now they don't qualify for Govt program that their neighbors, whom spent all theirs on cocaine, will qualify for?

 

[Czech_pivo]

I wasn't anywhere near the topic of welfare, just OAS.
Again with the "wealthy" crap.....some people didnt squander all their money on trips, tattoos, and hookers, but saved and invested it to make a nice retirement income.
Now they don't qualify for Govt program that their neighbors, whom spent all theirs on cocaine, will qualify for?

I agree.
My wife and I have lived well under our means our entire working careers and have paid a Kings ransom each year in income taxes. Now that we’re 5-6yrs from possible retirement I’m being told that I might ‘earn’ too much and shouldn’t get OAS? If it wasn’t for us paying multiple tens of thousands in income taxes each year, OAS wouldn’t even be possible.

As a side note, places like Portugal, Spain, France, Costa Rica, Panama have all made it pretty straightforward and easy to get residency for retired seniors. Canada needs to be very careful on how they remove/reduce OAS and such going forward, otherwise they will lose more of their cash cows and golden goose’s. We wouldn’t want that top 20% shrinking and the remaining 60% to be forced to pay more than 35-40% of the income taxes burden.

 

[Furniture]

My wife and I have lived well under our means our entire working careers and have paid a Kings ransom each year in income taxes. Now that we’re 5-6yrs from possible retirement I’m being told that I might ‘earn’ too much and shouldn’t get OAS? If it wasn’t for us paying multiple tens of thousands in income taxes each year, OAS wouldn’t even be possible.

What about all the people 20+ years from retirement doing the same, who are suffering from ever decreasing services so you can enjoy a retirement funded by them, as they face down not having that option?

Screw them eh? As long as I get mine, who cares about the other people doing the right things in a world stacked against them by entitlements voted in before they were born.

 

[Halifax Tar]

As a side note, places like Portugal, Spain, France, Costa Rica, Panama have all made it pretty straightforward and easy to get residency for retired seniors. Canada needs to be very careful on how they remove/reduce OAS and such going forward, otherwise they will lose more of their cash cows and golden goose’s. We wouldn’t want that top 20% shrinking and the remaining 60% to be forced to pay more than 35-40% of the income taxes burden.

Respectfully, I wont shed a tear to a large swath of boomers becoming another countries demographic to deal with. If things are better for you in Portugal, Spain, France, Costa Rica or Panama I highly encourage you to move.

I encourage everyone who has the means and ability to move elsewhere. Chase opportunity.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

What about all the people 20+ years from retirement doing the same, who are suffering from ever decreasing services so you can enjoy a retirement funded by them, as they face down not having that option?

Screw them eh? As long as I get mine, who cares about the other people doing the right things in a world stacked against them by entitlements voted in before they were born.

Its ok, us "entitled folk" will all be dead by then, and there will be money-o-plenty.
At least thats the kind of crap propaganda we [including your age group) vote in every 4 years or less.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Its ok, us "entitled folk" will all be dead by then, and there will be money-o-plenty.
At least thats the kind of crap propaganda we [including your age group) vote in every 4 years or less.

There is a divergence that needs to happen. At some point we have to focus on the future of this country.

Arguably this is the big sacrifice that the boomers may be forced/asked to make. Which its less entitlement to their entitlements and more how can they leave a better country for their kids, grandkids ect ect ect.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Then just kill it cold....don't do the easy target of responsible people.

Like gun laws....

 

[Czech_pivo]

What about all the people 20+ years from retirement doing the same, who are suffering from ever decreasing services so you can enjoy a retirement funded by them, as they face down not having that option?

Screw them eh? As long as I get mine, who cares about the other people doing the right things in a world stacked against them by entitlements voted in before they were born.

I'm not suggesting that. I've never been a 'fan' of OAS because, as I've said here, its nothing more than a 'participation' reward for showing up day in and day out for 40yrs from the age of 18 to 65 and viola, everyone gets it. It should be phased out over a pre-determined time period.

The 'lost' income should be distributed across a further enhancement CPP, meaning increasing contributions to more inline with what the US has. Social Security in the US is meant to 'replace' 40% on an individuals income, the newly 'enhanced' CPP will cover up to 33% of our income - but - only up an income of 85,000$ whereas Social Security in the US is meant to cover 40% of our income up to 185,000$. IF the CPPIB is properly doing its job (and it has) of meeting or beating the total returns of the TSX60 Index, then the extra money paid into it will allow for even more investments and even greater returns on its money, thus solidifying its ability to continue to cover the retirement needs of the Canadian population.

The 2nd part should be an increase in the GIS to those who have little to no CPP or who falls below an total asset valuation level - not based on income but based on assets.

Implement both of these, while reducing and then eliminating OAS all together. It will be a phased approach, not a ripping off of the band-aide. And the approach should NOT be something as stupid as moving from 65 to 67 or 68 for eligibility. It should include no longer indexing it to any inflation increase (meaning your OAS payment does not increase by inflation every year). It should be something like, those 61-64 will receive 10% less than total amount payable going forward and that amount will not be indexed to inflation. Those 57-60 will receive 15% less than the maximum amount when they turn 65 and it won't be indexed to inflation. Continue this down each age bracket. At the same time implement increases to the CPP to have it cover 40% of ones incomes vs 33% today. This sort of plan/implementation will allow for those coming close to retirement to adjust their retirement plans accordingly.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Then just kill it cold....don't do the easy target of responsible people.

I think that's definitely on the table. And the method I would choose. I think people need to be generally responsible for their lot in life. And if people make the cognitive decision to squander there educational/working years then those years either extend to its sucks to suck when they're old. Welcome to depending on charity.

But Canada its a much softer and gentler place than I would like it to be.

Like gun laws....

I am not tracking the correlation here...

 

[Czech_pivo]

Respectfully, I wont shed a tear to a large swath of boomers becoming another countries demographic to deal with. If things are better for you in Portugal, Spain, France, Costa Rica or Panama I highly encourage you to move.

I encourage everyone who has the means and ability to move elsewhere. Chase opportunity.

While I agree with that 100% as I myself left in '93 when unemployment was north of 11-12%, one needs to be very careful of 'loosing' those 'go-getters' forever because they tend to fall statistically more in that top 20% bracket that pay 65% of all the income taxes here in Canada. That's the old 'brain drain' argument. Ideally we, this country, needs to get to a place where such a heavy burden, tax wise, is not placed on such a small, narrow group of people who really are not making a substantial amount of money. Please remember that to be considered in the top 25% in Canada an individual needs an income of only 81$k, to be in the top 20% roughly 93$k. Those making 93$k and above pay 65% of all income tax in Canada.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I am not tracking the correlation here...

Even for someone who isn't a gun guy even a little, its pretty obvious they want the "soft" target of responsible owners, and not the true problem.

"See, we're doing things"

 

[Halifax Tar]

While I agree with that 100% as I myself left in '93 when unemployment was north of 11-12%, one needs to be very careful of 'loosing' those 'go-getters' forever because they tend to fall statistically more in that top 20% bracket that pay 65% of all the income taxes here in Canada. That's the old 'brain drain' argument. Ideally we, this country, needs to get to a place where such a heavy burden, tax wise, is not placed on such a small, narrow group of people who really are not making a substantial amount of money. Please remember that to be considered in the top 25% in Canada an individual needs an income of only 81$k, to be in the top 20% roughly 93$k. Those making 93$k and above pay 65% of all income tax in Canada.

I believe in cold water medicine. If things aren't working for people then they need to vote with their feet. If a country wants its citizens to be patriotic and committed to it; then the country should be patriotic and committed about its citizens and create an environment for them to thrive and grow.

If its not doing that the people should move. Just like our ancestors did, in search of a better future. Human migration is timeless.

 

[Altair]

Dear god, the balanced budgets we would have without OAS.

The infrastructure we could build. The money we could give young people to buy and built houses. Heck, people might start having kids again.

On can dream.