- Reaction score
- 2,465
- Points
- 1,140
Just wait. If younger Canadians advocated for this the words " we cannot afford it" would come out so fast.
The country is broke...
Taxes are too high...
The debt/deficit...
Seniors Benefits Discussion- split from Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???
- Thread starter ytz
- Start date
The country is broke...
Taxes are too high...
The debt/deficit...
QV
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,171
- Points
- 1,040
Are any of the climate crisis taxes helping this?
- Reaction score
- 9,021
- Points
- 1,160
And whose fault is that? There only one party who has held the levers of power for over the last 10+ years.
- Reaction score
- 2,465
- Points
- 1,140
QV
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,171
- Points
- 1,040
Is your goal to just derail threads, especially with topics the mods already shut down?
You said taxes were too high... I'm just asking a question.
- Reaction score
- 7,412
- Points
- 1,260
If they have been married since they were in their 20-30s that is pain and suffering compensation for one or both of the spouses.
Or so I hear.....
- Reaction score
- 11,964
- Points
- 1,040
CPP is not wholly self-funded yet.
Any cut proposed to an age-related benefit that has been around a long time is going to run into this perception-of-fairness problem: those who paid in for others now want their turn. No-one wants to be one of the "suckers" born into the wrong time slot who pays in and never gets his share, or only gets a little.
Any cut proposed to an age-related benefit that has been around a long time is going to run into this perception-of-fairness problem: those who paid in for others now want their turn. No-one wants to be one of the "suckers" born into the wrong time slot who pays in and never gets his share, or only gets a little.
- Reaction score
- 7,848
- Points
- 1,260
As for the comment about 'naive' about the asset test that I was referring to - your primary residence is NOT an asset that generates income or can be used to draw from and live off of (except for a reverse mortgage, that's a whole other topic). If an individual has a secondary residency or a third or fourth and these are used to potentially generate rental income, for example. Grandma has the old family cottage that she rents out for 6-8weeks of the year, generating 20+k/yr in income off the books and still draws GIS - nope, sorry not going to happen. To be clear - I'm not talking about 'asset testing' an individuals primary residency, because again, your house does not generate income for you - unless you have renters and then that's rental income, which is to be declared and is fully taxable.
Just to be clear - the cost of OAS is not 85b a year. The cost of OAS AND GIS together is 85B - that is called the 'Elderly Benefits'. The 'Elderly Benefits' includes OAS and GIS lumped together.
According to the Fraser Institute's numbers for 2025, 7.5million CDN receives OAS and from within that number of 7.5million receiving OAS, 2.6 million receive GIS.
Approximately 2.6m Canadians receive GIS a year. The range of an average GIS monthly payment swings from 300$/month to 625$/month. Taking the low end and applying it to 2.6mllion CDNs across a yearly period and you get 9.3billion for GIS and using the high end number of 625$/month across 2.6million people and you get a cost of 19.5billion.
So, backing out either the GIS cost of 9.3billion at the low end or the 19.5billion cost for GIS at the high end, the approximate cost of just OAS is, using the number 85billion that you quote, 85billion - 9.3billion = 75.7billion or, when using the high-end GIS payment number, is 85billion - 19.5billion = 65.5billion.
OAS costs between 75.7billion to 65.5billion
GIS costs between 9.3billion to 19.5billion
There are between 3.4million and 3.6million CDN's 75yrs or older. Assuming that 90% of them receive the full 'top' up amount that Trudeau put in place in 2022, that's a range of 3.06million to 3.24million. That top up amount is 814$/month vs the 743$/month someone between 65 and 74yrs receives. That's an extra 71$/month or 852$ a year. Apply that 852$ across the low end of the 3.06million CDN's 75yr+ that's 2.6Billion a year. Apply that 852$ across the higher end of the 3.24million 75+yrs and you get 2.76billion.
An immediate cutback of the extra 71$/month in OAS for those 75yr and older would save between 2.6b and 2.76b a year. That would bring down the total OAS cost to a range of 65.5-2.6 = 62.9 through 65.5-2.76 = 62.74billion to at the high end cost of 75.7-2.6 = 73.17b to 75.5-2.76b = 72.74billion
OAS/GIS and CPP are all indexed, to inflation. OAS is indexed to a quarterly review. The 2024, the CPI for OAS was 2.8%. An immediate stoppage of applying the CPI annual inflation would save, estimated based on the 2024 number of 2.8%, would be a savings ranges of 1.76billion at the low end cost of 62.74b - 1.76b = 60.98b to the high end cost of 73.17b - 2.05b (the high end savings would be 2.05billion)= 71.12b.
So, just by rolling back the OAS increase that Trudeau put in place in 2022 from 815/month to 743/month for those 75 and older, will save a range of 2.6 to 2.76 billion straight away. Stop indexing OAS to inflation and you save another 1.76billion to 2.05billion at the high. Together that's a savings at the high end of 4.8billion straight away.
These 2 minor adjustments would potentially result in a savings of 4.8billion straight away. This could easily be apply for fiscal 2027.
Now for the other proposed savings that I suggested. Those currently aged 61-64yrs of age today would receive a reduced amount of OAS by 10% going forward once they turn 65 and can claim OAS. There are approximately 350,000 to 400,000 CDN's turning age 65 in 2026. If you reduce their OAS payment from today's rate of 743$/month to 90% of that you come to 669$/month. That's a difference of 74$/month or 888$/yr. That amount of 888$/yr would apply across the entire cohort of the 350-400,000 CDN's turning 65 in 2026. That translates into a savings of 888$ * 375,000 (mid point between 350-400) = 330million in savings.
Add that into the previous 4.8b and you now sit at 5.1b/yr in OAS savings. That savings continues to compound and grow every year because the payments are no longer indexed to inflation,
Now you apply the 15% OAS reduction to those in the next age group of 57-60 so that when they turn 65yr in 5-8yrs they would be paid 85% of 743$/month = 631/month. With inflation occurring every year, the value of 631$/month 8yrs into the future will have an even greater reduction in the total costs of OAS.
By doing it in this manner you give time for those in the 61-64 age to properly plan for this reduction. It will give even more time for those younger to make adjustments.
Obviously the immediate savings of 4.8 billion go be ramped up higher by lowering the amount before the total OAS is completely clawed back. But what needs to be understood that the seniors who have properly planned for their retirement and have a tax/financial planner worth their salt will easily - easily - find ways to 'reduce' their taxable income so that they will continue to receive the full OAS amount. I already outlined a very easy method to reduce you income level to below GIS thresholds in order to receive GIS in full, yet you have a million+ in a TFSA that is 100% non-taxable.
- Reaction score
- 11,964
- Points
- 1,040
A nice edge case, but a useless hypothetical. Pretty much no-one is going to have $1M in a TFSA any time soon, and who knows what else will be jigged around by people looking to find money for their own spending preferences over the next few decades.
What should people too young to be receiving OAS yet, but too old (realistically) to be benefiting from exciting new child payment and daycare allowance programs be voting for?
- Reaction score
- 7,848
- Points
- 1,260
Are you serious? There are plenty of TFSA’s that have greater than a million.
Every year that goes by will have more and more of them.
- Reaction score
- 11,964
- Points
- 1,040
Total contribution limit right now is $109,000.
What RoI number, repeated each year, would have gotten max contributions (each year) to $1M by now? A little over 25%?
Considering tsx and S&P indexes were up 32% and 18% respectively in 2025, it isn’t that crazy.
- Reaction score
- 11,964
- Points
- 1,040
Over the past 19 years?
- Reaction score
- 9,038
- Points
- 1,360
One could have $218,000 if your spouse dies and you have been named the "Successor" of their maxed out TFSA. (And you're maxed)
Still a long way from a million.
- Reaction score
- 23,916
- Points
- 1,010
Are you sure about that? My wife and I aren’t seniors and we income split every year. The tax program does it for us, automatically.
- Reaction score
- 11,964
- Points
- 1,040
I assume there'd be some growth (interest). 7% is a reasonable number over the long term. 25%, no.
- Reaction score
- 9,021
- Points
- 1,160
<sarc>What about all those people that pay EI premiums but never collect it before retirement?
Never mind, I know where the door is.
<sarcoff>
Never mind, I know where the door is.
<sarcoff>
- Reaction score
- 3,984
- Points
- 1,040
It would provide a actual reason for people to get married. A fiscal incentive which would encourage having complete home, more stability for children, lowers the complications of dealing with common-law ‘divorces’, etc.
100% sure you cannot income split until your a senior. Maybe your thinking of the tax program choosing who gets what tax benefits/credits applied where.
I wish there was income splitting for married couples across the board. For my family it would make a huge difference as I have to be the sole income earner due to my wife being stuck working casual to care for my disabled son. Having that income taxed as two people making 55k a year would save so much more than one person making 110k, even though they treat household income for our collective benefits.
Roughly tax on 110k is 23,693$ but tax on 55k split is a total of 14,894$, thats 8,799$ difference in tax savings. The difference that would make for many families is huge.
