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

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Temp lock to do a split and, just maybe, let a couple folk reflect on how proper discussion is done here on army.ca.
We like this to be were civil discussion happens.

EDIT:...now open. Thanks,
Bruce

 

[Altair]

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.



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.

This is where the issues lie. Unless there is a baby boom, every generation that follows the last will be the one holding that wealth and political power ensuring that they keep their gains.

But because of those gains it means subsequent generations have less children. So on and so forth.

The system is built to ensure that every other government expense will be sacrificed before ever touching benefits for retirees, regardless of their wealth.

The only thing that will change this is the day where financial realities butts head with demographic realities. But looking at nations like Japan, who are limping along despite having 1 retiree for every 2 working people, I won't live to see it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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

The Governor General? The PM? Everytime they get on a plane.

 

[Brad Sallows]

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.

Perhaps, but a lot of the discussion is confusing cause and effect in the belief that "cheaper housing -> more children".

Families are smaller because women have increasingly broad employment options and birth control is inexpensive and reliable. These two trends have been increasing for over five decades.

Housing prices are higher because families are smaller - people have more disposable income.

Housing prices got to a point at which the costs started becoming a constraint on family size also, but the fundamentals didn't go away.

Family from 20-35 and career from 35-55 is a sweet spot for those who figured it out.

 

[lenaitch]

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.

Same. I'm a Boomer. Married late; two careers, one kid. Daughter married late; tow careers, one (grand)kid. On my brother's side - nada. In my small lifelong circle, only one friend had more than two kids.

I don't know what data shows but, anecdotally, it seems the only group having multiple kids are immigrants. It's likely cultural but many are more inclined to live in muti-generational settings, which spreads out costs for housing, food, daycare, etc. I suspect as their Canadian born kids grow up, they will become more 'westernized' and trend to smaller families.

 

[Altair]

Same. I'm a Boomer. Married late; two careers, one kid. Daughter married late; tow careers, one (grand)kid. On my brother's side - nada. In my small lifelong circle, only one friend had more than two kids.

I don't know what data shows but, anecdotally, it seems the only group having multiple kids are immigrants. It's likely cultural but many are more inclined to live in muti-generational settings, which spreads out costs for housing, food, daycare, etc. I suspect as their Canadian born kids grow up, they will become more 'westernized' and trend to smaller families.

I think I saw somewhere that it lasts two generations.

 

[ytz]

I suspect as their Canadian born kids grow up, they will become more 'westernized' and trend to smaller families.

I think I saw somewhere that it lasts two generations.

Canadian raised immigrant here. My parents had two. I have one. My brother has two. Neither of us was even born in Canada and we're already below replacement. Who knows what our kids will do.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Canadian raised immigrant here. My parents had two. I have one. My brother has two. Neither of us was even born in Canada and we're already below replacement. Who knows what our kids will do.

Also an immigrant. Amongst the 5 siblings (one born in Canada) there are a total of 13 kids, and honestly I have no clue how many grandkids. Culture probably has some bearing.

As we grew up struggling middle class, most of us completed the climb to secure spots there, with three of us in the upper 5% range. That means we have had the means to support a family, with the inevitable close calls and near misses along the way so that may have a bearing on our family fecundity.

I wonder if overall birthrate decline in Canada may not also be about reduced fertility, given the surge in micro-plastics, carcinogens etc into our systems.

In the meantime, the country relies on immigration to maintain our birthrate, and hence the size of its captive labour and domestic consumption rates.

I definitely think that something has to give

 

[captloadie]

See, my experience is the opposite. I'm one of 5 kids. All of my siblings had multiple kids so there are now 12 grandchildren in the family. My wife's sister had three kids as well. The three or four close families whose kids were all born at the same time all had 2 or 3 kids. Of the 30 kids my wife has provided childcare for in the last 6 years, only one was an only child, and she has had four families where she will be caring for the third child in the family. None of these are first or second generation immigrant families.

 

[ytz]

Also an immigrant. Amongst the 5 siblings (one born in Canada) there are a total of 13 kids, and honestly I have no clue how many grandkids. Culture probably has some bearing.

You're also older than me. You're in the age bracket of my parents I assumes (60s/70s) which means your kids are in my cohort. The question to ask is how many of those 13 kids had 2 or more kids.

I wonder if overall birthrate decline in Canada may not also be about reduced fertility, given the surge in micro-plastics, carcinogens etc into our systems.

It's amazing that people want to jump to conspiracist nonsense before admitting that money has anything to do with it.

Even American realtors are more honest:

U.S. Birth Rates Plummet as Home Prices Surge: Here's How the Housing Market Is Shaping Family Planning

The U.S. fertility rate fell to an all-time low of 1.6 kids per woman in 2024 following two decades of decline, fueled in part by rising housing costs.

www.realtor.com

Or you can tell this economist at U of T who looked at the relationship between American birth rates and housing costs that he's wrong and it's all about microplastics.

Couillard’s research is a matter of immediate concern. According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the fertility rate in the United States is 1.62 children per woman while the population replacement rate would be 2.1.

“If rents had stayed flat since 1990, there would have been 11% more children born in the U.S. into the 2010s,” Couillard said. “I also found that the total fertility rate in the 2010s would have been 77% closer to the replacement rate if rents hadn’t increased. That’s a surprising result. It suggests that housing costs are a major driver of fertility decline. Housing abundance is not just about affordability; it’s about long-term demographic sustainability.”

Build, Baby, Build: Benjamin Couillard’s Research Links Housing and Fertility

Build Baby Build is a provocative title for an economics paper. It also accurately describes the policy decision-makers should adopt to address the role housing affordability plays in falling fertility rates. The paper, subtitled How Housing Shapes Fertility, captures the research results of...

newsletter.economics.utoronto.ca

 

[Altair]

Also an immigrant. Amongst the 5 siblings (one born in Canada) there are a total of 13 kids, and honestly I have no clue how many grandkids. Culture probably has some bearing.

As we grew up struggling middle class, most of us completed the climb to secure spots there, with three of us in the upper 5% range. That means we have had the means to support a family, with the inevitable close calls and near misses along the way so that may have a bearing on our family fecundity.

I wonder if overall birthrate decline in Canada may not also be about reduced fertility, given the surge in micro-plastics, carcinogens etc into our systems.

In the meantime, the country relies on immigration to maintain our birthrate, and hence the size of its captive labour and domestic consumption rates.

I definitely think that something has to give

The only thing I've personally come across regarding fertility is the challenges women having kids later in life causes.

I think the declining birth rate has far more to do with choice.

Canadians want 2.5 kids on average. Canadian women are averaging 1.25 kids and that number is dropping every single year without fail.

Inside that gap are the housing, career and affordabity crisis facing those who can have children.

Although if you have come across any literature pointing to environmental causes for a declining birth rate I would love to read them.

 

[ytz]

I think the declining birth rate has far more to do with choice.

In nature, animals stop procreatinng when facing environmental stress. Same idea.

 

[Brad Sallows]

See, my experience is the opposite. I'm one of 5 kids. All of my siblings had multiple kids so there are now 12 grandchildren in the family. My wife's sister had three kids as well. The three or four close families whose kids were all born at the same time all had 2 or 3 kids. Of the 30 kids my wife has provided childcare for in the last 6 years, only one was an only child, and she has had four families where she will be caring for the third child in the family. None of these are first or second generation immigrant families.

Exposure to babies has long been understood (and studied and confirmed) to be a motivating factor for having children.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

You're also older than me. You're in the age bracket of my parents I assumes (60s/70s) which means your kids are in my cohort. The question to ask is how many of those 13 kids had 2 or more kids.



It's amazing that people want to jump to conspiracist nonsense before admitting that money has anything to do with it.

Even American realtors are more honest:

U.S. Birth Rates Plummet as Home Prices Surge: Here's How the Housing Market Is Shaping Family Planning

The U.S. fertility rate fell to an all-time low of 1.6 kids per woman in 2024 following two decades of decline, fueled in part by rising housing costs.

www.realtor.com

Or you can tell this economist at U of T who looked at the relationship between American birth rates and housing costs that he's wrong and it's all about microplastics.

Build, Baby, Build: Benjamin Couillard’s Research Links Housing and Fertility

Build Baby Build is a provocative title for an economics paper. It also accurately describes the policy decision-makers should adopt to address the role housing affordability plays in falling fertility rates. The paper, subtitled How Housing Shapes Fertility, captures the research results of...

newsletter.economics.utoronto.ca

DUDE! Conspiracist nonsense?

WTF is wrong with you? I opined that it might be the case.

It's may be that you do either lack any social filters / are on the spectrum, simply do not have a single shred of politeness in your bones, or I suppose it may well be cultural, but it is still jarring. The rudeness makes it very difficult to make the effort to read your posts with an open mind.

I am curious - do you work alone or with very few subordinates?

 

[OldSolduer]

FWIW women 100 years ago were having their kids in their late teens and early 20s.
Different times.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The only thing I've personally come across regarding fertility is the challenges women having kids later in life causes.

I think the declining birth rate has far more to do with choice.

Canadians want 2.5 kids on average. Canadian women are averaging 1.25 kids and that number is dropping every single year without fail.

Inside that gap are the housing, career and affordabity crisis facing those who can have children.

Although if you have come across any literature pointing to environmental causes for a declining birth rate I would love to read them.

I did a cursory AI check:

Yes, overall fertility rates in Canada have been affected by environmental factors, both through direct biological impacts from environmental toxins and indirect psychological factors related to climate change anxiety. While socioeconomic factors are the primary drivers of Canada’s declining, "ultra-low" fertility rate (1.25 children per woman in 2024), environmental concerns and toxins are increasingly recognized as contributing factors.
Statistique Canada +4
Here is how environmental factors are influencing fertility in Canada:

1. Environmental Toxins and Biological Impact
Exposure to environmental contaminants is a significant factor in the rising rates of infertility, with 1 in 6 Canadian couples having difficulty getting pregnant.
Genomics Research and Development Initiative

• Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs): Chemicals found in plastics, pesticides, food packaging, and personal care products can alter hormones, leading to reduced sperm quality in men and impaired ovarian function in women.
• Industrial Pollutants: Research has linked persistent organic pollutants (POPs)—including PCB and perfluorinated compounds—to increased time to pregnancy and reduced fertility.
• Impact on Fertility Rates: Infertility incidence has doubled in Canada since the 1980s, with environmental toxins identified as a potential contributor.
  Genomics Research and Development Initiative +3

2. Climate Change Anxiety and Decision-Making
Environmental anxiety, particularly regarding climate change, has a documented influence on reproductive decisions, particularly among younger generations.
The Vanier Institute of the Family

• Reduced Reproductive Intentions: Concerns about climate change and environmental degradation are a factor for approximately 9% of Canadians in their decision to have fewer or no children.
• "Eco-Anxiety": Studies show that young adults of childbearing age are rethinking having children due to the perceived impact of global environmental events on a new generation.
• Long-Term Uncertainty: Research suggests that anxiety over environmental futures can lead to women postponing childbearing, contributing to the declining fertility rate.
  Cardus +3

3. Indirect and Contextual Environmental Factors

• Air Pollution: Studies have shown correlations between exposure to air pollution and reduced fertility, including poor semen quality and delayed conception.
• Environmental Degradation: Broader environmental decline is often linked with lower overall fertility rates (TFR) in academic studies, where high carbon footprints and reduced environmental quality correspond with lower fertility, say reports.
  PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov) +1

While the decline in Canada’s fertility rate is most strongly driven by factors like rising education levels, participation in the labor market, and delaying childbearing until later ages, environmental factors are a significant and growing contributor.

 

[Eaglelord17]

So if I'm not okay with student loans for students who have parents with million dollar assets (often called the family home). All people who own a home should be forced to sell it to fund their child's education. Not taxpayers.

That doesn't make much sense.

Kids with high income parents can’t get student loans even if they want to or their parents say they won’t pay. This doesn’t even get into how student loans are a scam, they charge a 8% or more interest rate on it, basically a cheap mortgage payment which takes decades to pay off. Great way to screw over the youth starting out.

It should be interest free or worst case prime.

No; they shouldn’t be punished because the neighbourhood they spent their adulthood in jumped in price and their modest 1960s home now has a high knockdown value because of the lot it’s on. Why would we force them literally out of their homes? Home ownership is both a dream, and a social/community stabilizer. Attacking that would be both wrong, and untenable public policy.

Your not forcing anyone out of homes. Your just not providing welfare to those who have large amounts of assets.

That 1 million dollar home can be looked at 2k in rent a month for 41 years, and thats with no interest or other compounding effect being applied.

Alternatively this is why many have HELOCs and other such products because it allows them to live quite luxurious lifestyles off their equity well still not effecting benefits like OAS as it isn’t income. This is why asset tests are valuable for stuff like this.

Isn’t hard to do, just need to look at what the property is assessed at for their property taxes.

This is where the issues lie. Unless there is a baby boom, every generation that follows the last will be the one holding that wealth and political power ensuring that they keep their gains.

But because of those gains it means subsequent generations have less children. So on and so forth.

The system is built to ensure that every other government expense will be sacrificed before ever touching benefits for retirees, regardless of their wealth.

The only thing that will change this is the day where financial realities butts head with demographic realities. But looking at nations like Japan, who are limping along despite having 1 retiree for every 2 working people, I won't live to see it.

We have two classes of Canadians currently, those who owned a home before 2019 and those who didn’t.

Perhaps, but a lot of the discussion is confusing cause and effect in the belief that "cheaper housing -> more children".

Families are smaller because women have increasingly broad employment options and birth control is inexpensive and reliable. These two trends have been increasing for over five decades.

Housing prices are higher because families are smaller - people have more disposable income.

Housing prices got to a point at which the costs started becoming a constraint on family size also, but the fundamentals didn't go away.

Family from 20-35 and career from 35-55 is a sweet spot for those who figured it out.

Housing prices are higher because of lack of supply.

We stopped building public housing in the 90s and never restarted. We stopped forcing companies to add in low income housing in most cases. We greatly increased the population of the country in a very short amount of time resulting in much less housing being available.

We have rent control in most provinces which results in every time a new place is rented they need to squeeze as much as they can from the next tenant because they can’t increase it much afterwards. This also disproportionately effects the youth as they need to start with high prices instead of being grandfathered in like everyone else.

I am of the opinion that OAS should be means and income tested, it is welfare. You don’t even need to pay taxes at any point to receive it, only live within the country for a certain length of time.

I am also of the opinion that income splitting needs to be for all married couples or for no one. Seniors currently benefit from this but so would everyone else.

 

[Brad Sallows]

FWIW women 100 years ago were having their kids in their late teens and early 20s.
Different times.

Don't have to go back that far. That was still true 50 years ago.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Don't have to go back that far. That was still true 50 years ago.

1972 was the last year Canada had a replacement birth rate.

 

[ytz]

DUDE! Conspiracist nonsense?

WTF is wrong with you? I opined that it might be the case.

Honestly, the evasive stuff gets tiresome. Let's just toss out everything and the kitchen sink to avoid the obvious. You're a grandparent. Go ask your kids if the reason they didn't have more kids was microplastics. See how that discussion goes.

Sure. There's environmental factors. Nobody is going to say that's zero. But like survey after survey has young people telling us exactly why they aren't getting married and having babies. It's frustrating when people try to ignore what they are telling us.