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

[daftandbarmy]

Wow. Its that bad ?

Global retirement is 'booming', with concurrent demands increasing on national bank accounts:

Mapped: The Global Retirement Boom

In this infographic, we show the number of people turning 65 each day across select countries amid a looming global retirement crisis.

www.visualcapitalist.com

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Minivans rock!! That is all...

 

[ytz]

Finally the discussion is going mainstream. Opinion piece from the Fraser Insitute in the Globe and Mail:

As Canada faces crippling debt, it must do the unpopular thing and cut elderly benefits

The Carney government regularly describes its fiscal approach as “ambitious” and “transformational,” but in reality it’s simply perpetuating a fiscal decline that’s plunging Canada deeper into red ink. To truly transform federal finances, the Carney government must reduce spending, even in areas that are politically unpopular. And to truly be ambitious, it should start by reducing elderly benefits – Ottawa’s largest single spending item.

....

In 2025-26, the government will spend a projected $83-billion on elderly benefits, and by 2030-31 that amount will rise to a projected $108.5-billion. This represents nearly $1 out of every $5 dollars the government plans to spend on programs and services that year. That’s more than the government spends per category on debt interest, health and social transfers to the provinces, employment insurance, children’s benefits and other big-ticket items.

Moreover, according to the Carney government’s spring economic update, elderly benefits will grow at an average rate of 5.5 per cent per year from 2025-26 to 2030-31 – faster than any other single spending item in the budget except debt interest costs, which will increase at an annual average rate of 8.4 per cent.

....

One option to reform OAS is to lower the income threshold at which seniors receive full payments. This would allow the government to reduce its spending while better targeting the program to those genuinely in need.

While any specific income threshold will be up for debate, one option is to use the maximum income upon which the government levies base CPP payroll taxes – $74,600 this year – as the threshold for full OAS benefits. As a result, low-income seniors and many middle-income seniors would still receive OAS payments, while the most vulnerable seniors would continue to receive GIS on top of OAS.

....

Opinion: As Canada faces crippling debt, it must do the unpopular thing and cut elderly benefits

The government can reduce its spending while better targeting those genuinely in need

www.theglobeandmail.com

Plenty of data and charts and international comparisons for those interested.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Finally the discussion is going mainstream. Opinion piece from the Fraser Insitute in the Globe and Mail:

Opinion: As Canada faces crippling debt, it must do the unpopular thing and cut elderly benefits

The government can reduce its spending while better targeting those genuinely in need

www.theglobeandmail.com

Plenty of data and charts and international comparisons for those interested.

I just finished reading that elsewhere... Interesting piece.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Meanwhile, rejoice, early retirement approvals raining down upon the masses ...

Thousands of federal public servants approved for early retirement​

Approximately 2,800 federal public servants have been approved for an early retirement package as part of the federal government’s plan to trim the size of the public service by 2029.

The government launched the Early Retirement Incentive program earlier this spring, inviting eligible public servants to apply to retire with an “immediate pension based on years of service, with no reduction for retiring early.”

Last December, approximately 68,000 public servants received notices informing them they could be eligible for early retirement.

According to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s website, 6,797 public servants have applied for the Early Retirement Incentive as of May 26.

A government official tells CTV News Ottawa deputy heads have certified 2,779 early retirement packages so far.

Public servants have until July 24 to apply for the Early Retirement Incentive (ERI) program. Any public servant approved for the early retirement incentive package must retire by Jan. 20, 2027.

The Canada Strong Budget 2025, released in November, outlined a plan to cut the size of the federal public service by 28,000 positions by 2029, including 12,000 employees and 350 executive positions cut through attrition and early retirement packages.

Front-line officers and staff in operational roles at the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Communications Security Establishment Canada are not eligible for the early retirement incentive.

Both the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada have filed a policy grievance over the early retirement incentive program. PIPSC said the program “violates consultation obligations and undermines collective agreement protections.”

A total of 24,393 public servants and 1,059 executives in the core public service have also received notices their jobs may be affected as part of the Comprehensive Expenditure Review. The government plans to cut 16,000 jobs through the review by 2029.

Thousands of federal public servants approved for early retirement

Approximately 2,800 federal public servants have been approved for an early retirement package as part of the federal government’s plan to trim the size of the public service by 2029.

www.cp24.com

These two articles need to hold hands.

Finally the discussion is going mainstream. Opinion piece from the Fraser Insitute in the Globe and Mail:

Opinion: As Canada faces crippling debt, it must do the unpopular thing and cut elderly benefits

The government can reduce its spending while better targeting those genuinely in need

www.theglobeandmail.com

Plenty of data and charts and international comparisons for those interested.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Minivans rock!! That is all...

Now if I could get one with 4 wheel drive and bit of ground clearance.

 

[dapaterson]

Now if I could get one with 4 wheel drive and bit of ground clearance.

And a RWS?

 

[GK .Dundas]

And a RWS?

I like the way you think!

 

[Halifax Tar]

Now if I could get one with 4 wheel drive and bit of ground clearance.

Get a Super crew and put a cap in the bed and you basically have a van with ground clearance and 4wd.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Finally the discussion is going mainstream. Opinion piece from the Fraser Insitute in the Globe and Mail:

Opinion: As Canada faces crippling debt, it must do the unpopular thing and cut elderly benefits

The government can reduce its spending while better targeting those genuinely in need

www.theglobeandmail.com

Plenty of data and charts and international comparisons for those interested.

Couldn't agree more. And it needs to be real change, not "as of 2035", but as of next FY.

I am curious. If the current government were to commit to such a plan, what would be the likely response from the various political parties? Especially given that the older one is, the more likely they are to vote.

And how about we do a real generational shift, and reduce entitlements for the old, and increase the contributions of the young to ensure that their future is looked after?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Couldn't agree more. And it needs to be real change, not "as of 2035", but as of next FY.

I am curious. If the current government were to commit to such a plan, what would be the likely response from the various political parties? Especially given that the older one is, the more likely they are to vote.

And how about we do a real generational shift, and reduce entitlements for the old, and increase the contributions of the young to ensure that their future is looked after?

What will be the approach?

Start rolling back the clawback threshold effective the next income tax year?
A general multi-year rollback?
End OAS together and increase the GIS payments to those with a lower income level?

I've viewed OAS (with my non-65yr old lenses) as pretty much a 'participation award' or a 'congrats you didn't leave Canada for else where award' for being here for 40yrs from age 18yrs onwards. Why else should everyone, everyone, get 700$+ a month for just living here for 40yrs after the age of 18? IF the intent was to ensure that housewives and such had some sort of income in the past, then they should have focused on the GIS and not even create the OAS in the first place.

To your 2nd point, I guess the attempt to address this is the 'enhanced CPP' contributions which are to move CPP up from 25% income replacement to 33%. The US's Social Security plan is supposed to replace 40% of an individuals income when they retire. Obviously our 'old' version of CPP failed to come close to that as it was set for 25% replacement and now the 'enhanced' CPP is still failing with its 33% coverage.

Social Security is set at a 6.2% contribution of your income - capped at 184,500$ of income!

The 'enhanced' CPP is 5.95% for the first 74,600 of income and then 4% of your income from 74,601 to 85,000$.

Social Security goes ANOTHER 100k of income level.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Small point - not everyone. I am not eligible based on my pension and my modest income. Given that Mil salaries have expanded dramatically in the last 5 years, this will have an effect on more and more retired service members.

 

[ytz]

Small point - not everyone. I am not eligible based on my pension and my modest income. Given that Mil salaries have expanded dramatically in the last 5 years, this will have an effect on more and more retired service members.

As per Fraser institutes' proposed maximum ($74 600), I will be there in something like 1.5 years. And I am fine with that. Far better to have a sustainable program that really takes care of low income seniors than pay pogey to myself and my peers who won't truly need it, all while burdening following generations with the debt of doing that.

Just a reminder too that Harper did roll the OAS age forward from 65 to 67. But he cowardly set implementation 10 years out. And then Trudeau simply rolled it back. For once, politicians need to have the balls to make these changes today. Not kick the can down the road.

 

[Eaglelord17]

And how about we do a real generational shift, and reduce entitlements for the old, and increase the contributions of the young to ensure that their future is looked after?

They have already increased the contributions of the young substantially over the last decade. Every time I have gotten a pay raise it seems CPP, CPP 2 and EI increases eat away whatever increase has been made.

The young are already paying more in taxes than the old ever did (GST never even existed until the 90s, lower premiums paid on other benefits, etc.), with crappier pensions, stagnant wages, skyrocketing housing costs, increased cost of goods, etc.

What increase is really viable for the youth?

 

[dapaterson]

They have already increased the contributions of the young substantially over the last decade. Every time I have gotten a pay raise it seems CPP, CPP 2 and EI increases eat away whatever increase has been made.

The young are already paying more in taxes than the old ever did (GST never even existed until the 90s, lower premiums paid on other benefits, etc.), with crappier pensions, stagnant wages, skyrocketing housing costs, increased cost of goods, etc.

What increase is really viable for the youth?

GST replaced hidden taxes - it was always present, just not visible.

Marginal rates have decreased over time.

CPP has moved from a "gather some money, spend as we go and assume away the future" to "invest for the future to make the program sustainable".

 

[RangerRay]

Now if I could get one with 4 wheel drive and bit of ground clearance.

Mitsubishi Delica!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I just finished reading that elsewhere... Interesting piece.

Have you got a link? The G&M article posted is behind a pay wall.

I need to read it before I bitch or praise it.

On the face, I have problems with this government, including possibly reducing my payments because they can't keep their books in the black. Some fucking carney world banker bullshit they keep trying to shove down our gullet.

What will be the approach?

Start rolling back the clawback threshold effective the next income tax year?
A general multi-year rollback?
End OAS together and increase the GIS payments to those with a lower income level?

I've viewed OAS (with my non-65yr old lenses) as pretty much a 'participation award' or a 'congrats you didn't leave Canada for else where award' for being here for 40yrs from age 18yrs onwards. Why else should everyone, everyone, get 700$+ a month for just living here for 40yrs after the age of 18? IF the intent was to ensure that housewives and such had some sort of income in the past, then they should have focused on the GIS and not even create the OAS in the first place.

To your 2nd point, I guess the attempt to address this is the 'enhanced CPP' contributions which are to move CPP up from 25% income replacement to 33%. The US's Social Security plan is supposed to replace 40% of an individuals income when they retire. Obviously our 'old' version of CPP failed to come close to that as it was set for 25% replacement and now the 'enhanced' CPP is still failing with its 33% coverage.

Social Security is set at a 6.2% contribution of your income - capped at 184,500$ of income!

The 'enhanced' CPP is 5.95% for the first 74,600 of income and then 4% of your income from 74,601 to 85,000$.

Social Security goes ANOTHER 100k of income level.

A participation award? It's a social contract that I entered into with the government. I started making contributions when I was 15, with the understanding that I would recoup it back when I retired. Now it looks like the financially incompetent liberals and their super dooper world banking expert, have burned us so bad they have to raid our pensioners pockets for cash. The middle class is disappearing.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Have you got a link? The G&M article posted is behind a pay wall.

I need to read it before I bitch or praise it.

On the face, I have problems with this government, including possibly reducing my payments because they can't keep their books in the black. Some fucking carney world banker bullshit they keep trying to shove down our gullet.

A participation award? It's a social contract that I entered into with the government. I started making contributions when I was 15, with the understanding that I would recoup it back when I retired. Now it looks like the financially incompetent liberals and their super dooper world banking expert, have burned us so bad they have to raid our pensioners pockets for cash. The middle class is disappearing.

You have never directly made contributions into OAS, just as there was never a promise you would receive it as it is welfare based on income levels and how long you have lived in country.

It has also been directly increased by the Liberals over the last decade well beyond what the program originally started out as.

Don’t confuse OAS with CPP, two very different programs. One is government welfare coming out of general revenues, the other you directly contributed into a pension fund.

Most people would agree that you shouldn’t be paying welfare to someone making up to 154,708-160,647$ a year, with clawbacks on it only starting at 95,323$ a full 35k above the average income or a bit over double the median (i.e. what most people are actually making) income.

Paying welfare to people making double the median income is criminal.

 

[ytz]

Have you got a link? The G&M article posted is behind a pay wall.

I need to read it before I bitch or praise it.

On the face, I have problems with this government, including possibly reducing my payments because they can't keep their books in the black. Some fucking carney world banker bullshit they keep trying to shove down our gullet.

A participation award? It's a social contract that I entered into with the government. I started making contributions when I was 15, with the understanding that I would recoup it back when I retired. Now it looks like the financially incompetent liberals and their super dooper world banking expert, have burned us so bad they have to raid our pensioners pockets for cash. The middle class is disappearing.

Were you this upset when Harper changed the OAS age from 65 to 67 in 2012. Something Harper discussed at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Was he a scary globalist banker to you then? You must have loved Trudeau then when he reversed Harper's policy after getting elected in 2015. Justin may actually be the reason you got full OAS.

https://macleans.ca/opinion/the-retirement-age-in-canada-is-too-low-and-thats-a-growing-problem/

Funny how talking about going back to Harper era policies is some "world banker bullshit".

Also, Carney hasn't talked about it at all. There are many of us who think he should grow a pair and start cutting.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Have you got a link? The G&M article posted is behind a pay wall.

It was on Twitter. It opened for me...