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

[Czech_pivo]

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.

Do you have any financial planning experience? Any qualifications at all? Do you work in banking?

 

[Czech_pivo]

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

Not from Government.

 

[Altair]

Not from Government.

Okay, lets put it another way.

Is there a way to massively expand CPP without massively expanding contributions from working age canadians?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Okay, lets put it another way.

Is there a way to massively expand CPP without massively expanding contributions from working age canadians?

There's your 'give' again.

 

[Altair]

There's your 'give' again.

Funny since youre asking working age canadians to 'give' more to older canadians via increases CPP contributions while being likely to receive less from it themselves by the time they retire.

Giving is fine as long as it's in one direction it seems.

 

[ytz]

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.....

The government cuts CCB for parents using family income.

OAS is determined exclusively on individual income.

Funny how that works.

 

[ytz]

Do you have any financial planning experience? Any qualifications at all? Do you work in banking?

We're at the point now where you want to argue that only people who have financial qualifications should be allowed to discuss public programs that are funded by tax dollars?

Cool.

What's your qualification to be on a defence forum here? How much time do you have in uniform?

See how that works?

I have a decent portfolio and am comfortable financially. I don't advocate for these policies out of self-interest. I advocate for them because I don't want my kid's generation to inherit a shittier country bankrupted by paying every spare dollar to OAS.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The government cuts CCB for parents using family income.

OAS is determined exclusively on individual income.

Funny how that works.

Look out!!! SWERVE ANSWER AHEAD!

 

[Halifax Tar]

I have a decent portfolio and am comfortable financially. I don't advocate for these policies out of self-interest. I advocate for them because I don't want my kid's generation to inherit a shittier country bankrupted by paying every spare dollar to OAS.

You just keep smashing dingers.

 

[Czech_pivo]

We're at the point now where you want to argue that only people who have financial qualifications should be allowed to discuss public programs that are funded by tax dollars?

Cool.

What's your qualification to be on a defence forum here? How much time do you have in uniform?

See how that works?

I have a decent portfolio and am comfortable financially. I don't advocate for these policies out of self-interest. I advocate for them because I don't want my kid's generation to inherit a shittier country bankrupted by paying every spare dollar to OAS.

I went for a walk over lunch and mulled this over.
I was off-side to say that. I was wrong and I apologize for saying that.

 

[ueo]

I didn't use "hoarding". Halifax Tar did. But I'll back him up. Seniors as a cohort are the group with the highest proportion of assets and the lowest levels of poverty of any group in the group in the country. To some extent, they are "hoarding" assets.

During the era of asset tests, seniors had to downsize, because support was somewhat contingent on not being very asset heavy. You couldn't live in a million dollar house and access government programs. We got rid of asset testing and today you can do exactly that. This has led to the absurd situation of seniors being the richest, least impoverished and yet most subsidized cohort in the country.

If you're a senior this may feel like an attack on you. It's not. It's simply a request to go back to how things used to be.

Dunno know who these folks are! Own my home, modest svgs... ME?

 

[ueo]

There's your 'give' again.

Probably not!

 

[ueo]

"Hoarding" actually becomes clear in this example. I don't know anybody in their 20s, 30s, 40s who own a bigger home than their parents, despite having successful careers (often more education and higher inflation adjusted incomes than their parents). Some raise kids in smaller homes than they grew up in. Yet all of them will get less in child benefits than their parents get in OAS. Imagine that. Grandparents getting subsidized vacations while kids get payouts insufficient to fully supply baby formula for the grandkids for a month (which now costs $50 for those who don't know).

Oh Balls cite sources

 

[foresterab]

Been thinking about this alot recently...due to dealing with death of one relative who only had OAS and a second who can not afford rent based upon a very limited disability check. Add in medical conditions and the need to relocate them provinces due to lack of supports it's been chaotic at best.

Want to make a structural change? In my mind I think of the US 401k savings program but I don't know if I want to go that far as it would completely fracture the good work the CPP does.

Instead I think of an individual share for retirement age based upon three factors:
1) EI payments - have you always paid in or have you annually drawn down on this. I would excluded parental leave as a draw down but if you're working seasonally and drawing annually you should either pay more upfront or accept lower payments down the road. I include this to incentivize small business owners who have to pay EI but can't draw upon it...instead they get something later in life.

2) CPP - Keep it the same but add a factor that adjusts based upon the number of years paid into it. Australia has a system where you are only eligible if you've spent at least 10 years as a citizen and at least 5 of those living in country full time. So no citizen of convience rules or getting payments while only spending a short amount of time in country and retiring. My appolgies for the AI summery:
Immigrants can qualify for the Australian Age Pension if they meet specific residency requirements, which generally demand living in Australia for at least 10 years (with at least 5 of those years being continuous), holding an eligible visa, and passing income and assets tests. [1, 2, 3]

Key Requirements for Immigrants
To receive the Age Pension, applicants must meet several core criteria:

• Age: Must be at least 67 years old.
• Residency: Must be an Australian resident and have lived in Australia for a minimum of 10 qualifying years. At least 5 of these years must be continuous, though there are sometimes exemptions for refugees or humanitarian entrants.
• Income & Assets: Total income and assets must fall below the thresholds set by Services Australia

3) Income supplement. This is where assets would be used and should be on a case by case basis. It might mean an expansion of senior's housing (verses long term care beds in hospitals which is a bigger drain) to ensure rent controlled environments but a person who has not been able to generate savings needs a quality of life as well. Healthier housing alone compared to slum lord environments has to have some health benefits based upon what I've seen via family.

End of the day I think a person should be able to log onto MyCRA and see all the key details including simple application (as not all take benefits immediately or take them early) and see what the eligibility and budget numbers are. #1 and #2 should be generated via payments made to Revenue Canada while #3 is on a case by cases basis and only after review . The Federal government should have access to the banking statements and would only need to validate land title ownership (another topic for government reform)

 

[ytz]

Dunno know who these folks are! Own my home, modest svgs... ME?

Oh Balls cite sources

Some tidbits:

As recently as 2014, Canada had ranked in fifth place in the World Happiness Report, an annual index tabulated by the University of Oxford. But the latest edition dropped Canada to an all-time low of 25th place. The plunge was driven largely by a catastrophic decline in the happiness of Canada’s youth. According to the poll, Canadian youth (those aged under 25) now rank 71st in the world for self-declared happiness.

In comparison, most countries reported young people who were happier than those of a generation ago.

And the World Happiness Survey was released around the same time as news that Canada has passed another generational milestone. In late 2025, economist Mike Moffatt parsed through figures from 2023 and discovered that, for the first time ever, Canadian men aged 65 and older now had higher incomes than men aged 25 to 35.

When those old men had been young themselves, they had incomes that were roughly double those of the era’s seniors. But now, the average 65-year-old Canadian male was pulling down $61,600, while a Canadian man in some of his prime working years could expect just $61,200.

...

Outmigration is currently sitting at highs not seen since the 1960s. The loss has been particularly noticeable among entrepreneurs, whose ranks are now 100,000 fewer than they were 20 years.

...

Unemployment among those aged 15 to 24 is currently sitting at 14.1 per cent, one of the highest in decades outside the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among workers over 55, by contrast, unemployment is at 4.9 per cent; far lower than the Canadian average of 6.7 per cent.
...

At ground zero of the generational divide, as always, is the real estate market.

The average Canadian senior has benefited from one of the most lucrative housing bubbles in human history. The inflation-adjusted cost of a Canadian home in 1990 was about $260,000.

Even after several years of price declines, the benchmark price now stands at $661,100. This means that the mere act of owning a home over the last 36 years has yielded roughly $11,000 per year in equity.

...

Just this week, the group Generation Squeeze renewed their proposal to dial back Old Age Security, arguing that it largely functions as a way to distribute government cheques to some of the Canadians least in need of it. Their proposal is simply to stop sending OAS to seniors households already earning more than $100,000 per year — a move they say could save $7 billion per year.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/as-canada-implodes-its-seniors-are-richer-and-happier-than-ever-before

Nobody begrudges you for paying off your home and having modest savings. We're asking that young people be given the same opportunity you had at that age and are not forced to pay crushing taxes to literally subsidize people richer and higher income than them, while also at the same time facing the highest student debt, worst housing affordability and crushing child rearing costs.

 

[ueo]

Some tidbits:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/as-canada-implodes-its-seniors-are-richer-and-happier-than-ever-before

Nobody begrudges you for paying off your home and having modest savings. We're asking that young people be given the same opportunity you had at that age and are not forced to pay crushing taxes to literally subsidize people richer and higher income than them, while also at the same time facing the highest student debt, worst housing affordability and crushing child rearing costs.

Join the Army, see the world and finally settle in one place. No regrets!

 

[ytz]

Been thinking about this alot recently...due to dealing with death of one relative who only had OAS and a second who can not afford rent based upon a very limited disability check. Add in medical conditions and the need to relocate them provinces due to lack of supports it's been chaotic at best.

Want to make a structural change? In my mind I think of the US 401k savings program but I don't know if I want to go that far as it would completely fracture the good work the CPP does.

Instead I think of an individual share for retirement age based upon three factors:
1) EI payments - have you always paid in or have you annually drawn down on this. I would excluded parental leave as a draw down but if you're working seasonally and drawing annually you should either pay more upfront or accept lower payments down the road. I include this to incentivize small business owners who have to pay EI but can't draw upon it...instead they get something later in life.

2) CPP - Keep it the same but add a factor that adjusts based upon the number of years paid into it. Australia has a system where you are only eligible if you've spent at least 10 years as a citizen and at least 5 of those living in country full time. So no citizen of convience rules or getting payments while only spending a short amount of time in country and retiring. My appolgies for the AI summery:
Immigrants can qualify for the Australian Age Pension if they meet specific residency requirements, which generally demand living in Australia for at least 10 years (with at least 5 of those years being continuous), holding an eligible visa, and passing income and assets tests. [1, 2, 3]

Key Requirements for Immigrants
To receive the Age Pension, applicants must meet several core criteria:

• Age: Must be at least 67 years old.
• Residency: Must be an Australian resident and have lived in Australia for a minimum of 10 qualifying years. At least 5 of these years must be continuous, though there are sometimes exemptions for refugees or humanitarian entrants.
• Income & Assets: Total income and assets must fall below the thresholds set by Services Australia

3) Income supplement. This is where assets would be used and should be on a case by case basis. It might mean an expansion of senior's housing (verses long term care beds in hospitals which is a bigger drain) to ensure rent controlled environments but a person who has not been able to generate savings needs a quality of life as well. Healthier housing alone compared to slum lord environments has to have some health benefits based upon what I've seen via family.

End of the day I think a person should be able to log onto MyCRA and see all the key details including simple application (as not all take benefits immediately or take them early) and see what the eligibility and budget numbers are. #1 and #2 should be generated via payments made to Revenue Canada while #3 is on a case by cases basis and only after review . The Federal government should have access to the banking statements and would only need to validate land title ownership (another topic for government reform)

Canada has higher residency requirements for OAS. Also, CPP and OAS are different.

Finally, Harper proposed raising OAS age to 67 in 2012 to kick in 2023. Trudeau reversed that decision in 2016. If anybody hit 65 after 2023, they are getting OAS at that age because of Trudeau. That single decision alone is likely costing a non-insignificant percentage of the annual deficit.

 

[foresterab]

Canada has higher residency requirements for OAS. Also, CPP and OAS are different.

Finally, Harper proposed raising OAS age to 67 in 2012 to kick in 2023. Trudeau reversed that decision in 2015. If anybody hit 65 after 2023, they are getting OAS at that age because of Trudeau.

Thanks YTZ....learning alot of this the hard way as to what's out there but it's all second hand stories being told to me due to extended family.

 

[ytz]

Thanks YTZ....learning alot of this the hard way as to what's out there but it's all second hand stories being told to me due to extended family.

I'll correct myself. We have the same requirement. But on two different tracks. Best to go to the source.

If you are living in Canada, you must:

• Be a Canadian citizen or a legal resident at the time we approve your OAS pension application
• Have resided in Canada for at least 10 years since the age of 18

If you are living outside Canada, you must:

• Have been a Canadian citizen or a legal resident of Canada on the day before you left Canada
• Have resided in Canada for at least 20 years since the age of 18

Old Age Security - Do you qualify - Canada.ca

You can receive the Old Age Security (OAS) pension at age 65 even if you have never worked or are still working.

www.canada.ca

That said. Maximum OAS requires 40 years of residency in Canada. It's pro-rated if you have less than 40 years.

The Old Age Security program toolkit - Canada.ca

The Old Age Security program toolkit

www.canada.ca

 

[Eaglelord17]

The government cuts CCB for parents using family income.

OAS is determined exclusively on individual income.

Funny how that works.

Don’t forget they also get to income split as seniors which is something younger married couples cannot do.