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

[Czech_pivo]

So a Canadian trained doctor or nurse who goes to work in the USA doesnt leave a void that canada fills with a foreign trained doctor or nurse?

Targeted immigration measures to boost Canada’s supply of doctors - Canada.ca


Ya, sure.

Again you fail to understand the problem, the issue.

 

[ytz]

Again, you failed to read my other posts.

I find it funny that OAS was treated the same as the Health Care benefit in the past, meaning that everyone got it and everyone was treated the same, regardless of their income. But, but, when it becomes apparent that some of us have properly planned of the future by saving/investing accordingly, those of us that have paid 65% of all income tax collected year in and year out and provided all the funding for all the programmes in the past and still managed to live within our means or below our means, that when retirement comes along we are asked yet again to tighten our belt and take the sucker punch that the other 80% wants to throw at us.

A number on here have talked about how Canada consistently 'under' achieves, how it has soooo much potential thanks to our size and gift of natural resources. Well, its quite easy to see and understand after listening to all of this. Its the old Japanese proverb - 'the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.'

You can keep obfuscating about the the percentage of taxes paid by different economic cohorts. At the end of the day though, your complaint is really simple: you want it because you feel entitled to it by having paid more in taxes.

But if you have properly planned, why the complaint? You don't need it. Enjoy your wealth and move on.

I will be in the exact same position as you if what I am advocating for happens. And I am fine with it.

 

[Altair]

For all the people clutching their pearls, dont worry.

90 percent of Canadians older than 55 voted for the CPC, LPC and the BQ, all of whom will never touch OAS.

They would rather watch the country collapse that dare to address it.

 

[Altair]

Again you fail to understand the problem, the issue.

Outside the scope of this conversation.

 

[ytz]

For all the people clutching their pearls, dont worry.

90 percent of Canadians older than 55 voted for the CPC, LPC and the BQ, all of whom will never touch OAS.

They would rather watch the country collapse that dare to address it.

"But why don't I have more grandbabies...."

 

[Czech_pivo]

If you have properly planned, why the complaint? You don't need it. Enjoy your wealth and move on.

I will be in the exact same position as you if what I am advocating for happens. And I am fine with it.

I'm hot on this simply because its just another example of those in this country who simply think that the answer to all the solutions is to continuously hammer the 20% of the population who consistently carries a disproportionate burden of society. There is little to no looking or accepting responsibility for ones own actions, choices or lifestyle.

 

[Halifax Tar]

A number on here have talked about how Canada consistently 'under' achieves, how it has soooo much potential thanks to our size and gift of natural resources. Well, its quite easy to see and understand after listening to all of this. Its the old Japanese proverb - 'the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.'

In definitely in the group you're alluding too but you lost me on the correlation.

 

[ytz]

I'm hot on this simply because its just another example of those in this country who simply think that the answer to all the solutions is to continuously hammer the 20% of the population who consistently carries a disproportionate burden of society. There is little to no looking or accepting responsibility for ones own actions, choices or lifestyle.

Funny how you don't think about the parents in that very same cohort (which is actually most of us who are complaining here). They have kids to feed, lowest housing affordability in history, highest education prices ever. But you want them to keep paying the disproportionate taxes that fund this pogey. What do they get in return?

Keep in mind that literally any CAF member who does the full 35 years and qualifies for a pension is likely to be very close to the $74.6k threshold proposed by the Fraser Institute. Any officer who does 25 years is going to exceed that threshold and be bumping up against the $90k threshold we're talking about. So the "kids" on here advocating for these policies will never see a penny if what we're proposing happens. That should tell you something about where our priorities lie.

 

[Altair]

"But why don't I have more grandbabies...."

Because you're hogging all the government spending grandma...

This doesnt even touch healthcare spending which is spend disproportionately more on older canadians than younger canadians.

This doesnt address the covid 19 lockdowns which hit older canadians harder than younger canadians but effected younger canadians harder financially than older canadians.

Yet when it comes to "giving" somehow everyone forgets the sacrifices younger canadians are making to support the older cohorts while getting little in return.

Well, that's not true. We get a lot of scorn in return.

 

[Czech_pivo]

You can keep obfuscating about the the percentage of taxes paid by different economic cohorts. At the end of the day though, your complaint is really simple: you want it because you feel entitled to it by having paid more in taxes.

Again, that's not what I'm saying. I have said, time and again that OAS needs to be rolled down to zero. It needs to cease to exist in any form, over a set period of years. It needs to be replaced by an expanded CPP and a GIS that is based on 'assets' NOT income. I keep saying that GIS needs to have an asset means test because I'm straight up aware that one can shelter their assets to such a point that they can be seen as having virtually no income and qualify for GIS but can be pulling 50-60-70K a year out of a TFSA which is all non-taxable. Do you want that to happen? Because over time that is exactly what will occur. I know many financial planners who are aware of this approach already and are actively implementing it as part of the retirement strategy with clients.

 

[Altair]

Again, that's not what I'm saying. I have said, time and again that OAS needs to be rolled down to zero. It needs to cease to exist in any form, over a set period of years. It needs to be replaced by an expanded CPP and a GIS that is based on 'assets' NOT income. I keep saying that GIS needs to have an asset means test because I'm straight up aware that one can shelter their assets to such a point that they can be seen as having virtually no income and qualify for GIS but can be pulling 50-60-70K a year out of a TFSA which is all non-taxable.

Okay, let me simplify this. When you say you want a expanded CPP and means tested GIS, do you want the same level of collective spending on elderly to be about the same or do you want it to be significantly lower?

 

[ytz]

It needs to cease to exist in any form, over a set period of years. It needs to be replaced by an expanded CPP and a GIS that is based on 'assets' NOT income.

I am wondering if you're proposing this because you're naiive or because you know this will never happen. If we asset tested seniors today, the vast, vast majority would not qualify for OAS. Basically anybody with a paid off house in any metro area over say 250k probably wouldn't qualify. I think we can all guess at the political tenability of such a proposal. And for somebody who is so adamant about how the top 20% get screwed, proposing what amounts to a wealth tax in another form is quite the idea.

Far easier to simply apply income caps. People are already filing returns every year anyway. Their OAS can be adjusted as their income changes. And if future governments want, they can start including TFSA withdrawals in their income calculations for benefit purposes. But that's a different discussion.

And yes, CPP needs to be more generous. But that's a 30+ yr problem and fix. OAS is f'king the budget today. So the urgency on OAS is far more immediate. It's already at $85B. It's going to hit $100B in 2030. And is forecast to keep going to quarter trillion in 2050. None of this is sustainable. Meanwhile, people here are arguing that $5-6B per year to build HSR or $3-5B per year in dental is not sustainable. If those programs are not sustainable than OAS is a crisis.

 

[Altair]

I am wondering if you're proposing this because you're naiive or because you know this will never happen. If we asset tested seniors today, the vast, vast majority would not qualify for OAS. Basically anybody with a paid off house in any metro area over say 250k probably wouldn't qualify. I think we can all guess at the political tenability of such a proposal. And for somebody who is so adamant about how the top 20% get screwed, proposing what amounts to a wealth tax in another form is quite the idea.

Far easier to simply apply income caps. People are already filing returns every year anyway. Their OAS can be adjusted as their income changes.

And yes, CPP needs to be more generous. But that's a 30+ yr problem and fix. OAS is f'king the budget today. So the urgency on OAS is far more immediate. It's already at $85B. It's going to hit $100B in 2030. And is forecast to keep going to quarter trillion in 2050. None of this is sustainable. Meanwhile, people here are arguing that $5-6B per year to build HSR or $3-5B per year in dental is not sustainable. If those programs are not sustainable than OAS is a crisis.

Again, 90+ percent of canadians older than 55 voted LPC, CPC and BQ.

This is not a mistake, an accident, or a anomaly. This is the design. None of those parties will ever, ever touch OAS.

The NDP and Greens got 25 percent of the youth vote, way more than what the older cohorts would vote for.

As such, we are stuck. OAS will continue to screw us, today, tomorrow, well into the future. The last check that will go out before a government goes into complete anarchy mad max style will be a OAS one.

 

[ytz]

Quick use of Gemini for consideration:

Prompt:

What percentage of the population makes below $74 600? What percentage of seniors make more than $74600?

Response:

Approximately 50% of the overall Canadian population (specifically, economic families and unattached individuals) makes below $74,200 to $74,600 in adjusted after-tax income. Conversely, more than 50% of senior families make more than this amount, as the national median after-tax income for senior families sits higher at $83,200.

We're literally paying pogey to a demographic that earns more than society, has more assets and fewer dependents. What the actual fuck.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Okay, let me simplify this. When you say you want a expanded CPP and means tested GIS, do you want the same level of collective spending on elderly to be about the same or do you want it to be significantly lower?

CPP is NOT spending on the elderly, what are you talking about? It does NOT come from government revenues. Its COMPLETELY funded by individuals and by their employers.

As for GIS, there will be a need, 100% to ensure that individuals who work their entire lives in min wage jobs or a few dollars about min wage, who, with even an expanded CPP to cover off 40% of their income will still need to be looked after. This is a societal responsibility and I have zero issues with it.

For example, if a person has worked 30+yrs at McDonalds or Tim Hortons or Bob's Cleaning Services and has made 19$/hr and makes 37k/yr for their entire working career, a CPP that covers off 40% of 37k is only going to give them just under 15k a year. Can a person 65yrs old live on 15k a yr? No, they certainly can't. Therefore a GIS that brings them up to say 65-70% of their previous income of 37k (which is 26k/yr) should be looked at.

Back to the GIS, there needs to have an 'asset test' to it as I've said before. A person who has properly planned for the future using their TFSA can easily shelter a million+ from taxation and have only have CPP as income can easily qualify for GIS. Under today's CPP, the max CPP payout to someone who is 65yrs old is 1,507$/month or 18k a year. In order to qualify for GIS you have to have an income less than 21k a year. See what I'm getting at? A person have say 1million in their TSFA and draw out 4% of the year - that's 40k a year, add in their CPP of 18k and viola that 58k a yr - but to the Government its only the 18k from CPP, so guess what, they will get paid to them 1,100$/month from GIS for another 12k a yr and bam, they are now having access at 70k/yr.

You can address the above in 2 ways, raise the CPP to cover off 40% of ones income instead of the 33% the enhanced does for those earning over 74k a year to 85k a year and the 25% for those earning less than 74k a year - and - implement the 'asset test' I suggested above.

 

[Altair]

Quick use of Gemini for consideration:

Prompt:



Response:



We're literally paying pogey to a demographic that earns more than society, has more assets and fewer dependents. What the actual fuck.

But at What Cost? Healthcare Utilization of Canadian Carer-Employees - PMC

Caregiving plays a crucial role in aging societies by supporting individuals with chronic illnesses, disabilities, or aging-related needs. The unpaid labour provided by caregivers diverts healthcare resources from the formal healthcare system; ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Increases in human longevity as a result of advances in medicine and better living conditions mean that the contribution of non-communicable diseases to global disease burdens has increased in recent decades. Older adults (65 years+) make greater use of healthcare resources due to the higher prevalence of chronic or degenerative disease in this group. Annual healthcare spending on older adults is substantive, at CAD 12,000 per adult over 65 years of age, compared to CAD 2700 for Canadians under 65. Projections indicate that aging societies will stress healthcare systems and healthcare budgets, with an estimated 88% increase in healthcare expenditures from 2019 to 2040 due to the increase in the number of adults over 65 years of age in the population.

 

[Halifax Tar]

We're literally paying pogey to a demographic that earns more than society, has more assets and fewer dependents. What the actual fuck.

That statement right there should be the nail in coffin of this whole thread.

 

[Altair]

CPP is NOT spending on the elderly, what are you talking about? It does NOT come from government revenues. Its COMPLETELY funded by individuals and by their employers.

As for GIS, there will be a need, 100% to ensure that individuals who work their entire lives in min wage jobs or a few dollars about min wage, who, with even an expanded CPP to cover off 40% of their income will still need to be looked after. This is a societal responsibility and I have zero issues with it.

For example, if a person has worked 30+yrs at McDonalds or Tim Hortons or Bob's Cleaning Services and has made 19$/hr and makes 37k/yr for their entire working career, a CPP that covers off 40% of 37k is only going to give them just under 15k a year. Can a person 65yrs old live on 15k a yr? No, they certainly can't. Therefore a GIS that brings them up to say 65-70% of their previous income of 37k (which is 26k/yr) should be looked at.

Back to the GIS, there needs to have an 'asset test' to it as I've said before. A person who has properly planned for the future using their TFSA can easily shelter a million+ from taxation and have only have CPP as income can easily qualify for GIS. Under today's CPP, the max CPP payout to someone who is 65yrs old is 1,507$/month or 18k a year. In order to qualify for GIS you have to have an income less than 21k a year. See what I'm getting at? A person have say 1million in their TSFA and draw out 4% of the year - that's 40k a year, add in their CPP of 18k and viola that 58k a yr - but to the Government its only the 18k from CPP, so guess what, they will get paid to them 1,100$/month from GIS for another 12k a yr and bam, they are now having access at 70k/yr.

You can address the above in 2 ways, raise the CPP to cover off 40% of ones income instead of the 33% the enhanced does for those earning over 74k a year to 85k a year and the 25% for those earning less than 74k a year - and - implement the 'asset test' I suggested above.

Where does the CPP get their money from I wonder...

 

[Altair]

That statement right there should be the nail in coffin of this whole thread.

It should.

It wont.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

That statement right there should be the nail in coffin of this whole thread.

Not as long as "unattached individuals" is in the "answer"........gee, two people make more money then one person in general? Groundbreaking research to make a point right there.....