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

[PPCLI Guy]

Hmmm. I ran my numbers based on my pension and a modest annual income and I get nothing (based on OAS recovery tax).

I just reran those numbers without my income and I will in fact be entitled to 765/month, with reductions to that amount kicking in at ~90K, reducing the total entitlement by almost half. So as my CAF pension gets reduced by the amount of my Canada old dude pension, I will be eligible to some elements of OAS, but not enough to cover the delta to my pension income (and I know that last statement adds pomegranates to my apples v oranges comparisons).

I obviously have a personal dog in this fight, but not a very large one.

What set me off was the vitriol applied to other Canadians based on their personal financial circumstances, and perceived generational skullduggery.

I suspect you are mixing up OAS and GIS. Possibly even CPP. Learn the difference.

You do realise that this entirely gratuitous statement comes off as arrogant, dismissive, and worthy of an old school "go fuck yourself", if not an old school intervention. Kind of a nice addition to calling seniors MFers.

 

[Altair]

Is it all not just cyclical? Has there been a period of time where the cohort of seniors have not been the wealthiest and the younger people have been those who have had to struggle to build their wealth, until they have become the wealthier senior cohort? Is the poverty level among young people that much worse than it was when I was in my 20's, or my parents were in their 20's? Has not every group of parents complained that the seniors are hoarding the wealth, and their children will be the ones to pay for Gov't lavish spending?

I surprise myself in that I am actually optimistic that eventually most individuals will figure out what works for them, and be able to build a stable life. They may have to fail a bit beforehand, and they may end up going down an employment path they didn't expect or want, but like all of us on here, we eventually found a path.

Humanity will find a path, naturally. But humanity is also subject to the forces of paths of least resistance, biology and incentives.

Do young people eventually get into houses and careers? Naturally. Do they do so much later in life than other generational cohorts? Yes, certainly. So marriages are being pushed back, average age of first child for a woman, pushed back, average number of children per women dropping year over year. Strains in relationships due to trying to support children and housing leading to more failed relationships and thus fewer children, certainly.

Then countries like Canada turn heavily to immigration. Immigration puts further strains on housing and healthcare due to people just showing up and needing it now rather than growing into it like children tend to do.

Did we all enjoy our immigration crisis via Trudeau? No? That's funny, because it's the only solution we have for this other picking a generation, saying to said generation "hey, we have all these old people who have made it impossible to have kids and impossible to bring in immigrants so you will need to support all those rich old people until they die off sometime in their 90s with the lowest amount of taxpayers supporting that cohort ever seen. Also, defense spending is 5 percent now. Sorry eh?"

Life finds a way. But the way only reinforces the bad practices put in place before it, because, again, this is what the system is designed to do and it's doing its job very well, younger Canadians be damned.

 

[ArmyRick]

Switch directions. Here is an up and coming CPC MP who has brains and a banking background. She is excellent with numbers. Maybe a Pierre successor?

 

[Brad Sallows]

And set CPP contributions and pay outs high enough that a normal working life will yield a CPP payout at or above the LICO in most of the country.

Terrible idea. CPP forces people to invest for an absurdly low RoI (to contributors). If anything is to be mandated, mandate a savings rate and allow people to invest in pretty much any investment vehicle offered by pretty much any bank and major investment group. That limits investment options more than I'd like, but doesn't encourage government to start meddling with stamp-of-approval schemes.

 

[Brad Sallows]

And vacations shouldn't be taxpayer subsidized.

How do you know it's vacations that are subsidized, and not groceries and other necessities?

 

[Altair]

The ‘million dollar homes’ thing is a red herring. In almost all cases, those homes weren’t worth nearly that when bought. The prices spiked in the past decade. Yes, they could sell it for that, but then would need somewhere else to live that will probably cost most of that. For many, it’s a hedge asset for if they need to pay for costly seniors care later. If the sale of same is effectively forced,

You go where the most people are, and a home that costs a million bucks is almost all because of the spike in land values. While yes, those homes do constitute material wealth, they’re anchored to a specific need- keeping a roof overhead.

Some do sell and downgrade to smaller homes, others hang on to them to pass the value on to the kids. Probably the only way those kids have a hope in hell of eventual ownership themselves. Some seniors are low income and do draw on that wealth through reverse mortgages and the like. All good. But for most, that nominal value of their home - which is only realized if they sell or otherwise convert their equity - isn’t anything that helps them cover costs of living. Giving those seniors the option to stay rooted in their established communities and support networks is very worthwhile from a policy standpoint as we face a major demographic crunch.

The OAS policy question should be fought, I believe, at the income threshold level, and not on the front of home ownership. Now with that said, there may be room to look at whether other types of assets aside from primary home ownership should be considered, but that’s a whole different rabbit hole I won’t start down myself.

To be fair, I don't much care about the million dollar home. Everyone in Toronto for example has a million dollar home, or should I say the land itself is worth near that or more.

It's the second homes, third homes, cottages to go with homes, boats to go with cottages.

But saying million dollar homes is a easy way to describe the class that I'm talking about without going into all of that.

 

[ytz]

You do realise that this entirely gratuitous statement comes off as arrogant, dismissive, and worthy of an old school "go fuck yourself", if not an old school intervention. Kind of a nice addition to calling seniors MFers.

Nobody is calling all seniors MFers. We've all get parents that are seniors.. That was clearly referring to the jet set. If you got offended by that, well....

Terrible idea. CPP forces people to invest for an absurdly low RoI (to contributors). If anything is to be mandated, mandate a savings rate and allow people to invest in pretty much any investment vehicle offered by pretty much any bank and major investment group. That limits investment options more than I'd like, but doesn't encourage government to start meddling with stamp-of-approval schemes.

The idea here was simple. Design CPP in such a way that a normal working life should not require any other income support from the taxpayer. I am not opposed to your idea. But I want to know how you'd make sure they don't put it all in crypto, end up with nothing and then end up demanding OAS?

 

[ytz]

How do you know it's vacations that are subsidized, and not groceries and other necessities?

Who is spending $90k on "groceries and necessities"?

 

[brihard]

"People like this get OAS."

People like that get a lot of things, including pensions, including public sector pensions, including well-indexed public sector pensions. Start swinging that resentment axe, and it's going to hit a lot of people, including people here whether today or tomorrow.

Correct. The majority of people receiving public sector indexed pensions should not, from a policy standpoint, be receiving OAS or any other form of grey welfare. Such seniors’ benefits should be chopped off at the top, and some of that compressed downwards to help the lowest income ones who in many cases are absolutely fucked.

 

[ArmyRick]

Humanity will find a path, naturally. But humanity is also subject to the forces of paths of least resistance, biology and incentives.

Do young people eventually get into houses and careers? Naturally. Do they do so much later in life than other generational cohorts? Yes, certainly. So marriages are being pushed back, average age of first child for a woman, pushed back, average number of children per women dropping year over year. Strains in relationships due to trying to support children and housing leading to more failed relationships and thus fewer children, certainly.

Then countries like Canada turn heavily to immigration. Immigration puts further strains on housing and healthcare due to people just showing up and needing it now rather than growing into it like children tend to do.

Did we all enjoy our immigration crisis via Trudeau? No? That's funny, because it's the only solution we have for this other picking a generation, saying to said generation "hey, we have all these old people who have made it impossible to have kids and impossible to bring in immigrants so you will need to support all those rich old people until they die off sometime in their 90s with the lowest amount of taxpayers supporting that cohort ever seen. Also, defense spending is 5 percent now. Sorry eh?"

Life finds a way. But the way only reinforces the bad practices put in place before it, because, again, this is what the system is designed to do and it's doing its job very well, younger Canadians be damned.

Ok, so fuck me, I am going to smash my head with a clawhammer after this post. Why? I am about to say this. You, yes you @Altair have brought up many valid points in this post.

I think we have laws of unintended consequences going on here. I don't think there is any secret cabal that planned the outcomes and results of this over the last 50 years. More that people made choices and events happened, that intersect at a correct point. Many 65+ are doing very well (especially factoring in paid for homes like my parents have) and the benefits out there to not let our seniors get behind have created a situation that is at the very least not-sustainable.

I don't follow the details on this particular situation as closely as others, so I won't speak out of ignorance if I can help it.

I believe you are correct. Life will find a way. I predict (subject to many errors) that the 18-35 cohort will surpass my generation (Gen X) and take over running this nation, economy and society. I expect many course corrections and I suspect this will happen shortly as the boomers "move along". I only hope this future generation that will take things over, do so with logic (and much less emotion) and plan for a truly long term viability.

 

[ArmyRick]

Who is spending $90k on "groceries and necessities"?

Give it 6 months to a year with the Liberal majority in charge (Sarcasm)

 

[Brad Sallows]

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.

Those two ideas are in conflict. Suppose an "ant" and a "grasshopper" have identical working incomes over their lifetimes. The "ant" has assets because he deferred gratification long ago in order to acquire the assets. The "grasshopper" has none because he chose to spend it more or less as it came in. The "ant" chose to structure his consumption differently over his lifetime than the "grasshopper".

To go after the "ants" later in life is to propose that the "grasshoppers" get the full enjoyment of their lifetime earnings, while the "ants" end up seeing some of it confiscated - some of it transferred to "grasshoppers". That's not really leaving "grasshoppers" to their fate.

 

[ytz]

Correct. The majority of people receiving public sector indexed pensions should not, from a policy standpoint, be receiving OAS or any other form of grey welfare. Such seniors’ benefits should be chopped off at the top, and some of that compressed downwards to help the lowest income ones who in many cases are absolutely fucked.

This is what I keep saying. The current situation is absurd. My parents get GIS. I see how little it is. If they didn't have a paid off home, it would be quite difficult for them. Meanwhile, as currently designed, somebody like me would get full OAS at $90k income. That's absurd policy.

Going after assets and all that is messy. I would rather avoid that. But I would argue that nobody above say 2x the national poverty line requires income support from the government. Here's the poverty lines:

Financial ability calculator - Canada.ca

Foreign Workers

www.canada.ca

Even using the highest cutoff for an individual (30,526), I think we can fairly say that if you have an income of twice that as a senior, you're fairly comfortable and shouldn't need further assistance from the taxpayer.

 

[captloadie]

Most of history? Where do you think the trope of the penniless grandma living in a tiny apartment comes from? Those programs were all created in the post-war era specifically to address senior poverty. It's actually kinda incredible that all those programs and policies have worked so well that we can arrive at a question like yours today.

But was that not the same period of time where we still cared for our elder parents in our own homes? So the question arises why was grandma living alone and penniless?

And I don't think times have changed that much among the Anglo-Saxon part of the Canadian population. My wife has an aunt, in her late 70's who is still living in an apartment and working every day in order to survive. But her only son lives only 20 minutes away in a home in The Bridle Path, and one of her two grandsons is a rookie in the NHL. There is an interesting family dynamic, but not a hostile one that would preclude her being better supported by family. Instead, she needs the Gov't support to get by. Maybe the discussion should also be that those who can afford to support their aging family members should be doing so to get them off the Gov't coffers, and not just the other way around.

 

[Altair]

Ok, so fuck me, I am going to smash my head with a clawhammer after this post. Why? I am about to say this. You, yes you @Altair have brought up many valid points in this post.

I think we have laws of unintended consequences going on here. I don't think there is any secret cabal that planned the outcomes and results of this over the last 50 years. More that people made choices and events happened, that intersect at a correct point. Many 65+ are doing very well (especially factoring in paid for homes like my parents have) and the benefits out there to not let our seniors get behind have created a situation that is at the very least not-sustainable.

I don't follow the details on this particular situation as closely as others, so I won't speak out of ignorance if I can help it.

I believe you are correct. Life will find a way. I predict (subject to many errors) that the 18-35 cohort will surpass my generation (Gen X) and take over running this nation, economy and society. I expect many course corrections and I suspect this will happen shortly as the boomers "move along". I only hope this future generation that will take things over, do so with logic (and much less emotion) and plan for a truly long term viability.

I don't think future generations will lead to any change.

The system is designed to give the illusion that as long as you stick it out, the pain you endure will pay off in the end.

Any change to said system will be admitting that this isn't the case. There is the youngest cohort that cares most about their immediate housing, career, biological needs, but those taking over have already passed that threshold and are waiting for their turn.

So many in my generation for example are waiting for their parents to pass on so they can get those properties and generational wealth. I know my wife is. They aren't going to pull the rug on themselves. That's the system at play, again.

You will know when Canadians collectively decide that the revolution is on and the apple cart is about to kicked over. It's when the NDP win a majority at the federal level. The CPC and LPC will do what they must to keep the system chugging along for at least one more generation in perpetuity. This is why despite the LPC or CPC fighting about who got the most young voters, the majority of those 50+ went with one of those two parties. Even Trudeau, who viewed himself as a champion of young Canadians, who tacked left, never touched these issues. The most left wing of recent prime ministers, for the most part, left the system exactly the way it is, with predictable results.

So no, I don't see anything changing. Which is why I find this so amusing. It's a very interesting thought exercise but not something that will ever be tested or adopted. Meanwhile I look around at my gen and the Gen following mine and everyone is embracing nihilism and betting it all on crypto, or sports betting, saying generally screw it, bet it all now because I'm screwed either way. Between myself, my wife, her two siblings, my one sibling, we all have a grand total of 1 kid. It's mine. 32-38 age range. Good luck Canada.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Gen Squeeze did an analysis by bedrooms instead of homes. We have an unprecedented number of empty bedrooms in an country with a housing crisis largely driven by the first generation of seniors in history not to downsize.

Which generation do they think is the first not to downsize? I can guess they got it wrong, in which case I can guess they indulged in motivated reasoning.

People as far back as the generation born before the big war (the first one) chose not to downsize as long as they could still look after themselves in their own detached homes.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Those two ideas are in conflict. Suppose an "ant" and a "grasshopper" have identical working incomes over their lifetimes. The "ant" has assets because he deferred gratification long ago in order to acquire the assets. The "grasshopper" has none because he chose to spend it more or less as it came in. The "ant" chose to structure his consumption differently over his lifetime than the "grasshopper".

To go after the "ants" later in life is to propose that the "grasshoppers" get the full enjoyment of their lifetime earnings, while the "ants" end up seeing some of it confiscated - some of it transferred to "grasshoppers". That's not really leaving "grasshoppers" to their fate.

I would change the word 'consumption' with 'gratification'

The Ant buys a vehicle, say a Toyota, that will last 12+yrs easily with proper maintenance. The Grasshopper leases a high end SUV with no money down, a very high monthly payment and for a 4yr time period. Over the 12yrs that the Ant owned the Toyota, the Grasshopper has gone through 3 vehicles, all high end SUV's with no money down and high monthly payments. The Ant used the money from years 5-12, after they paid off the Toyota for strictly maintenance costs and investing for retirement. They both 'consumed' the use of a vehicle over those 12yrs, they just had completely different sense of 'gratification.'

 

[PMedMoe]

Mods, I think we need a thread split here.

 

[ytz]

But was that not the same period of time where we still cared for our elder parents in our own homes? So the question arises why was grandma living alone and penniless?

I think you're mixing up stages of life. Grandma (often because grandpa passed away earlier) often lived on their own till they weren't able to live alone and then moved in to be taken care off.

And I don't think times have changed that much among the Anglo-Saxon part of the Canadian population. My wife has an aunt, in her late 70's who is still living in an apartment and working every day in order to survive. But her only son lives only 20 minutes away in a home in The Bridle Path, and one of her two grandsons is a rookie in the NHL. There is an interesting family dynamic, but not a hostile one that would preclude her being better supported by family. Instead, she needs the Gov't support to get by. Maybe the discussion should also be that those who can afford to support their aging family members should be doing so to get them off the Gov't coffers, and not just the other way around.

It's very hard to design government policy around anecdotes. There's always some story in either direction.

We should be trying to establish clear and concise goals and used data to design policies that get us there.

We have gotten to where we are because the politics of all this is very difficult in an aging society where the median voter is getting older. All major parties now cater to the oldest cohort above all else. Before the last major election, the Bloc's biggest demand from minority Liberals was a top up for older seniors for OAS. You would think it would be something about sovereignty. Nope, they just wanted a bigger cut for their voter base.

Canada is at a breaking point—the growing generational gap is a big reason why

thehub.ca

And the thing is, if this isn't at least contained while the Boomers are still here, it will actually make it all worse in the next generation. We'll end up with some feudal style wealth and income inequality that will probably tear this country apart. Heck, we're already at the point where the biggest flex in society is being able to have a second kid.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So no, I don't see anything changing. Which is why I find this so amusing. It's a very interesting thought exercise but not something that will ever be tested or adopted. Meanwhile I look around at my gen and the Gen following mine and everyone is embracing nihilism and betting it all on crypto, or sports betting, saying generally screw it, bet it all now because I'm screwed either way. Between myself, my wife, her two siblings, my one sibling, we all have a grand total of 1 kid. It's mine. 32-38 age range. Good luck Canada.

My wife and I have the only grand child on her side.

In our cohort of friends only 1 couple has more than 1 kid.

The collapse is coming.