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

[Czech_pivo]

That is VERY counter to the narrative of so many Canadians, who seem to believe that taxes would be lower in the US, even before paying 5-12K per year for health insurance (results vary from state to state, personal circumstances etc)

Having lived/worked in the US for a number of years, I can tell you that once you cross over say the 75k/yr level and you live in a 'good' neighbourhood, the tax levels tend to even out. They might pay lower % of income taxes but it can easily be made up by something like property taxes.

For example; in Burlington ON where I live, my detached house in an older neighbourhood, is 'average', it might be a bit above the above, for Burlington, but its 'average'. That means that it would roughly sell for 1.3ish million. Yes, that does sound like alot to some areas of Canada, but its pretty much the going rate in Burlington. Most likely my house would now be ripped down if I sold it and a much bigger house built on it for 3$ million because of the size of the lot and its location. The point I'm trying to make is this, I pay about 7,200$ a year in property taxes. We have friends who live in 'Chagrin Falls, Ohio' (he's from Nova Scotia, she's from Virginia). Their house in Chagrin Falls would sell for about 600k USD, but they pay just under 13,000$ USD in property taxes a year. So that extra 6k in property taxes would be applied to the lower income taxes that they pay and voila, it brings things into line.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So you're suggesting that the 20% of the population that pays 65% of all income taxes should get nothing and the remaining 60% who pay 35% of the income taxes should all get OAS? How very Socialist of you.

That's a fast track to having that 20% move out of this country right fast. I choose to come back here to specifically raise a family here because it was where I thought of all the places that I've lived that this would be the best place to raise a family. Now that I've actively planning for early retirement somewhere in the 5yrs range, I'm not so certain that this is necessarily the best place to stay for 184 days of the year if I want to keep more of all that I've earned through my prudent investing and living well under my means.

I suggested nothing of the sort. All wishful hoping on your part.

And even suggesting I'm a socialist, shows your ignorance.

 

[Seyek]

This is the report from 2019 that I have been using to site my 40% pay zero in income taxes.

Trudeau is right: 40% of Canadians don’t pay income taxes, which means someone else is picking up the bill – TriDelta Private Wealth

www.tridelta.ca

"Consider that if the bottom 40 per cent pays much less than zero per cent of income taxes, after adding the exceptionally large Canada Child Benefit and several other tax-free payouts, then someone else is picking up their tax bill."

The Fraser Institute report does NOT go into detail of each and every 'Benefit' that is available to individuals/families in Canada. The above report calls out these benefits and how after they are received, they in essence reduce the amount of income taxes paid effectively to zero.

It's great if someone pays 2,000$ in income taxes but then receives a benefit for 2,300$ paid to them in quarterly installments. That 'extra' 300$ has to be paid by someone.

Fair - the Fraser report doesn't take benefits into account. However, that report you linked isn't actually a report, it's a bunch of quick example calculations that focus wholly on families in northern Ontario receiving both Ontario specific tax credits (the Ontario Trillium Benefit) and having 3 children for which they receive the Canada Child Benefit. It also doesn't take into account non-income taxes paid by those same people. It in no way shows that the bottom 40% of earners don't pay income tax. That only holds true if every bottom 40% earner had 3 kids and lived in Northern Ontario receiving CCB and specific northern energy credits.

If anything it seems more like a roundabout complaint about giving families money to support kids.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I suggested nothing of the sort. All wishful hoping on your part.

And even suggesting I'm a socialist, shows your ignorance.

So, you don't think that the 20% of the population who pays 65% of all income taxes deserves any OAS and you don't believe that those who don't work or haven't paid any income taxes deserve the OAS either. If I understand your logic, the remaining 40% of the population should continue to get the entire OAS amount. Is that correct? Careful, because a decent number of the 40% will move up into the 20% when they get another 9,000$/yr paid to them, which in turn would mean that they would lose that 9,000$ payment.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So, you don't think that the 20% of the population who pays 65% of all income taxes deserves any OAS and you don't believe that those who don't work or haven't paid any income taxes deserve the OAS either. If I understand your logic, the remaining 40% of the population should continue to get the entire OAS amount. Is that correct? Careful, because a decent number of the 40% will move up into the 20% when they get another 9,000$/yr paid to them, which in turn would mean that they would lose that 9,000$ payment.

Nope. Not what I said at all. You're trying to apply your own criteria to something I didn't say. Go back, read what I said, take some time to understand and then you can ask a question without putting words in my mouth.

Fin.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Fair - the Fraser report doesn't take benefits into account. However, that report you linked isn't actually a report, it's a bunch of quick example calculations that focus wholly on families in northern Ontario receiving both Ontario specific tax credits (the Ontario Trillium Benefit) and having 3 children for which they receive the Canada Child Benefit. It also doesn't take into account non-income taxes paid by those same people. It in no way shows that the bottom 40% of earners don't pay income tax. That only holds true if every bottom 40% earner had 3 kids and lived in Northern Ontario receiving CCB and specific northern energy credits.

If anything it seems more like a roundabout complaint about giving families money to support kids.

I've laid it out in earlier msgs. HST, Fuel taxes, Property taxes, the numbers line up, not completely but closely.

For example, HST rebates - roughly 37% of the population receives them, pretty close to the 40% that come no income taxes. As for Fuel taxes, looking at Ontario Gas Tax, because the Federal HST portion would be covered off in the HST Rebate, comes in at 249.30$ on the average Canadian gasoline yearly amount 2,770$. So, yes, that bottom 40% is most likely paying 249.30$ in taxes for their gasoline.

The Fraser Institute numbers reflect 'income taxes paid' - they do not reflect 'income benefits received' that in essence reduce effective income taxes paid to zero.

Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit
Canada Workers Benefit (CWB)
Canada Child Benefit (CCB)
Ontario Trillium Benefit (OTB)
Canadian Dental Care Plan (CDCP)
Connecting Families Initiative
The Canada Training Credit

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Carney finally addresses the recession. Can anyone figure out what he just said. He's worse than Kamala Harris explaining things.
I'm going to try find the whole question and answer. This is just a byte.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2061822617183527265

Found the whole thing. Still a load of bafflegab and lies.

PM Carney on the Economy, CUSMA Talks – June 2, 2026

Ahead of the federal cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Mark Carney comments on the state of the economy amid concerns that Canada has entered into a technical recession. The prime minister faces questions from reporters on the state of CUSMA trade talks with the Trump administration. (no...

www.cpac.ca

Can someone tell if he's saying the same thing in both languages?

 

[Altair]

Source: Canadian youth a ‘rounding error’ compared to Carney government’s $88.8 billion projected OAS spending for seniors

Carney finally addresses the recession. Can anyone figure out what he just said. He's worse than Kamala Harris explaining things.
I'm going to try find the whole question and answer. This is just a byte.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2061822617183527265

Found the whole thing. Still a load of bafflegab and lies.

PM Carney on the Economy, CUSMA Talks – June 2, 2026

Ahead of the federal cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Mark Carney comments on the state of the economy amid concerns that Canada has entered into a technical recession. The prime minister faces questions from reporters on the state of CUSMA trade talks with the Trump administration. (no...

www.cpac.ca

Can someone tell if he's saying the same thing in both languages?

the comments in french are about the CUSMA negotiations.

As for the first part, it's simple. Population growth has gone negative, population is smaller, GDP is smaller.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

the comments in french are about the CUSMA negotiations.

As for the first part, it's simple. Population growth has gone negative, population is smaller, GDP is smaller.

Thanks.
So, is that your interpretation or is that what carney is saying? Just asking because now I'm confused. I've never been great with high finance anyway.

The population appears to have grown steadily since at least 2020.

Year Population Yearly % Change Yearly Change Migrants (net) Median Age Fertility Rate Density (P/Km²) Urban Pop % Urban Population Country's Share of World Pop World Population Canada Global Rank
2026 40,467,728 0.85% 341,005 291,403 40.8 1.33 4 80.2% 32,464,952 0.49% 8,300,678,395 38
2025 40,126,723 0.97% 384,293 326,204 40.6 1.33 4 80.2% 32,164,167 0.49% 8,231,613,070 38
2024 39,742,430 1.13% 443,325 368,599 40.5 1.34 4 80.2% 31,863,601 0.49% 8,161,972,572 38
2023 39,299,105 1.23% 477,846 433,842 40.3 1.35 4 80.3% 31,563,358 0.49% 8,091,734,930 38
2022 38,821,259 0.85% 324,679 459,988 40.3 1.37 4 80.5% 31,263,957 0.48% 8,021,407,192 38
2020 38,171,902 1.2% 441,934 256,592 39.9 1.41 4 80.3% 30,670,064 0.48% 7,887,001,292 38

The last negative GDP figures are in 2020. It appears to have grown since. Not great numbers mind, but still increasing.

 

[Altair]

Thanks.
So, is that your interpretation or is that what carney is saying? Just asking because now I'm confused. I've never been great with high finance anyway.

The population appears to have grown steadily since at least 2020.

Year Population Yearly % Change Yearly Change Migrants (net) Median Age Fertility Rate Density (P/Km²) Urban Pop % Urban Population Country's Share of World Pop World Population Canada Global Rank
2026 40,467,728 0.85% 341,005 291,403 40.8 1.33 4 80.2% 32,464,952 0.49% 8,300,678,395 38
2025 40,126,723 0.97% 384,293 326,204 40.6 1.33 4 80.2% 32,164,167 0.49% 8,231,613,070 38
2024 39,742,430 1.13% 443,325 368,599 40.5 1.34 4 80.2% 31,863,601 0.49% 8,161,972,572 38
2023 39,299,105 1.23% 477,846 433,842 40.3 1.35 4 80.3% 31,563,358 0.49% 8,091,734,930 38
2022 38,821,259 0.85% 324,679 459,988 40.3 1.37 4 80.5% 31,263,957 0.48% 8,021,407,192 38
2020 38,171,902 1.2% 441,934 256,592 39.9 1.41 4 80.3% 30,670,064 0.48% 7,887,001,292 38

The last negative GDP figures are in 2020. It appears to have grown since. Not great numbers mind, but still increasing.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-population-decline-first-time-9.7133643

Canada's population dropped last year, marking the first time the country has seen an annual net decline in residents since Confederation.

According to the latest quarterly estimate from Statistics Canada, the population of citizens, landed immigrants and non-permanent residents in Canada stood at 41,472,081 on Jan. 1, 2026 — a decrease of 0.2 per cent, or just over 102,000, from Jan. 1, 2025.

TFW and international students numbers were scaled back in november 2024, and we are seeing the results in early 2026.

Thus, with a falling population (with 1.3 births per women, without immigration we shrink almost immediately) the economy dropping in lockstep is not a surprise.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-population-decline-first-time-9.7133643

TFW and international students numbers were scaled back in november 2024, and we are seeing the results in early 2026.

Thus, with a falling population (with 1.3 births per women, without immigration we shrink almost immediately) the economy dropping in lockstep is not a surprise.

Cheers.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Seen.

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

Paying welfare to people who refuse to work, is also criminal.

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.

 

[ytz]

Saw a sign at a restaurant said, * No Senior Discount : You have lived twice as long to get the money."

A society that cared about its future would give more discounts to kids and fewer to seniors. Especially at a time when there's more poor kids than seniors.

 

[ytz]

And even suggesting I'm a socialist, shows your ignorance.

Situational socialist is probably more accurate.

 

[mariomike]

A society that cared about its future would give more discounts to kids and fewer to seniors.

Seniors will get their discounts, one way, or the other. < joke emoji

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

I had a friend with two kids, after a divorce, she had to go onto welfare for awhile, while on it, a lot of the kids medical and dental stuff was covered, when she found a job and went off welfare, she lost all of that benefits for her kids, that was a real struggle to make the leap, but she did well at her job and then made enough and got benefits to make up for that. But for a lot of single moms with kids, staying on welfare makes sense as you need to find a job that covers rent, childcare, medical/dental and a lot of the jobs a young single mom get, do not come close. We need to reward people who go from welfare to working with a gradual decline in support.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Seniors will get their discounts, one way, or the other. < joke emoji

My first senior discount was at Sears, the nice young lady says; "Oh and you get the seniors discount at 10%" I was starting to protest that I was not a senior and my inner Scot said to me; "Shut up you twat, it's an easy 10%"

 

[Czech_pivo]

I had a friend with two kids, after a divorce, she had to go onto welfare for awhile, while on it, a lot of the kids medical and dental stuff was covered, when she found a job and went off welfare, she lost all of that benefits for her kids, that was a real struggle to make the leap, but she did well at her job and then made enough and got benefits to make up for that. But for a lot of single moms with kids, staying on welfare makes sense as you need to find a job that covers rent, childcare, medical/dental and a lot of the jobs a young single mom get, do not come close. We need to reward people who go from welfare to working with a gradual decline in support.

There is alot of truth in that and there is alot of sense in that approach.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One of the shocks for her, was that the hubby did all the finance and such, and they got married young, so on divorce, she had no credit rating and could not get a credit card or a loan, so paying rent, food on the table and covering the kids expenses was a real struggle. That lesson stuck with me and we are making sure our daughters have a sound fiscal knowledge and are involved in their financial future.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Situational socialist is probably more accurate.

Definitely completely innaccurate.