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

[Bruce Monkhouse]

"Grandpa's pogey" gets distributed around the country and may serve those who need it at least...your pet HSR serves those already with $$$$ in a tiny part of the country.

 

[ytz]

"Grandpa's pogey" gets distributed around the country and may serve those who need it at least...your pet HSR serves those already with $$$$ in a tiny part of the country.

At least you're being honest about it being redistribution and not a genuine need.....Progress.

But still on the misinformation about "tiny part of the country" with the largest chunk of the population and economy.

 

[Altair]

At least you're being honest about it being redistribution and not a genuine need.....Progress.

But still on the misinformation about "tiny part of the country" with the largest chunk of the population and economy.

geographically its small.

Land is all that matters ya ken?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

ya ken?

Typical of you when youre challenged and have no decent response.

At least you're being honest about it being redistribution and not a genuine need.....Progress.

But still on the misinformation about "tiny part of the country" with the largest chunk of the population and economy.

That'll probably serve about 2% of that population who can afford it.

And it'll do nothing for the economy, make new freight train lines if you want that.

 

[Brad Sallows]

When it comes to anything else?

"Every dollar counts. That's why we can't build HSR."

When it comes to Grandpa's pogey?

"Why bother? Only a few billion will be saved."

It's bad faith bullshit.

The "bad faith bullshit" is the way the issue is presented by some people, which is unfortunately the usual way in politics. Cite the entire program cost, and assert the existence of edge cases intended to aggravate readers (eg. "subsidizing vacations for wealthy seniors") as if they might be a fair representation of the whole.

I'm already on record here as favouring some OAS reform. I'm interested in realistic proposals that don't throw out the interests of the people I know and have known who are very low income seniors, not an intergenerational food fight.

 

[Altair]

Typical of you when youre challenged and have no decent response.

Funny, I don't remember replying to you.

I was talking to my good friend @ytz

 

[Czech_pivo]

Simply eliminating income splitting while bringing the thresehold to 81k would probably provide the bulk of the savings. Bringing the cutoff to 100k from 185k would be the cherry on top.

That all said, you wanted some numbers, this researcher has provided some. Whether they are 100 percent accurate, I cannot begin to say. What I will say is with OAS barrelling towards 100b a year it would be nice to have some reforms to the program. If this can save 20b a year, all the better.

Please site accurate numbers - OAS is not barreling towards 100b a year.
You, and others, are lumping in the cost of GIS into the OAS. I have laid out, in detail, previously the costs of GIS vs OAS. Together they can in at roughly 83-85b a year.

 

[Altair]

Please site accurate numbers - OAS is not barreling towards 100b a year.
You, and others, are lumping in the cost of GIS into the OAS. I have laid out, in detail, previously the costs of GIS vs OAS. Together they can in at roughly 83-85b a year.

My bad.

Elderly payments are barreling towards 100b a year by 2030.

 

[Czech_pivo]

My bad.

Elderly payments are barreling towards 100b a year

Again, to be clear, we are not talking about cutting GIS in any manner, at least I’m not.

GIS costs, again something that I laid out previously, range from 9-19.5b a year and is accessed to 2.6m CDNs.

 

[Altair]

Again, to be clear, we are not talking about cutting GIS in any manner, at least I’m not.

GIS costs, again something that I laid out previously, range from 9-19.5b a year and is accessed to 2.6m CDNs.

Regardless, elderly payments being 100b a year by 2030 is unsustainable.

We Canadians should want to reform the system. Everyone worried about the debt, the budget, deficits, should be looking very hard at one of the largest line items that is set to get even larger.

 

[PuckChaser]

Funny, I don't remember replying to you.

I was talking to my good friend @ytz

Then take it to PM. If you post on open boards people are allowed to respond to you whether you like it or not. This trolly adversarial attitude is wearing thin.

- Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Czech_pivo]

Have a watch, 10 places where a senior can live on just CPP and OAS.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Not just politicians, I have private sector friends whose whole/majority of post work subsistence is based on real estate. A crash in the market would destroy they're ability to retire.

The death and destruction of the private sector pension is criminal IMHO.

The removal of the Defined Benefit requirement plan was kicked to the family jewels for many in the private sector. Having a CPP that was set up to only cover 25% of some ‘avantage manufacturing wage’ has been another kick at those same jewels. The slow, long delayed, move to cover 33% is still not enough. It eventually should move up to cover 40% and the upper salary range should go up to 125k.

 

[YZT580]

Our country has many problems. Paying OAS to high income elderly Canadians is absolutely one of them. It’s not Robin Hood-eaque ‘steal from the rich’ to change the net income threshold to receive OAS. Not paying high income seniors welfare is simply not paying high income seniors welfare. Why should high income seniors receive welfare?

In actuality, I agree with you but singling that out is not the road to recovery as I have tried to point out. It is a distraction. My 12000 is not the reason why the average house in Canada is 847,000 whilst south of us it is 360,000. And explain to me why we were still sending money to support China up until recently; if we aren't still doing so. Explain why hospitals are actually laying off nursing staff and closing facilities whilst crying poor when they are the beneficiaries of much of our GDP. No my friend, you can rant and rave all you want about OAS but that freeing up that portion of the budget isn't going to solve a damn thing.

 

[Czech_pivo]

If Karl Marx were alive he would be proud of you. Every one who has earned wealth has done it by putting their efforts into earning it and they have paid a price for it. They have sacrificed time, often times family, health to achieve a goal. The same can be said to a certain extent about the 3rd generation ones. Very few are content and there are any number who are featured in the news with one problem or another. Prince Andrew is probably a great illustration of that. But back to that first generation. In return for those efforts they have provided a decent living for any number of families. Yes they ran sweatshops until minimum wages made them unprofitable. Cheers for the government. What did they accomplish? Those sweatshops are now in Bangladesh and China and the people who worked in them were left unemployed. My in-laws went through that and were forced to move into her father's home for years instead of their own home which they had to sell. So there are two sides or more to government interference.
You talk about all us rich retired folks enjoying government largesse. Many of us are still supplementing our kids. Many have taken out mortgages to facilitate their buying a home. Some have put in basement apartments so the kids could move back. Sure they go to Florida for two months in the winter. So what? The money I don't spend on gas going to work and the suits that are no longer required would cover much of those expenses and downsizing into a townhouse covers the rest: which is what many have done. There will always be poor people for any number of reasons. I just did a search for seniors earning in Canada. The median income is 31000 after taxes so you aren't chasing after a whole lot of people. Since the ceiling is 148,000 I would suggest that re-setting the roof at 125,000 might cover the annual meal costs on CanForce 1.(sarcasm) There are bigger and more blatant wastes to pursue.

The reality is that OAS was given to all individuals in the past - regardless of their income level - and now, with a growing senior population and many of those who paid attention to the 'save for tomorrow' advertisements put out by the banks/insurance/investment companies, the call is to pull that money back from them. Sorry, you saved and sacrificed and invested wisely and now you won't get anything from the government when you retire.

I've said my peace on here before about this and I'm not going to go through it all again.

If OAS is going to be changed/altered then I believe that it should be completely rolled into the GIS program and the 'participation award' that is OAS should be scrapped completely. A new line is drawn under seniors who earn a set threshold and they are given the 'Government Income Supplement' and it should be called that - 'a supplement' because we the taxpayer will be supplementing your income going forward.

Lastly, I also believe that the enhanced GIS should be somehow linked directly to the length of time one has lived in Canada. I am not in agreement that someone who was brought here in some family reunification plan at the age of 57 or 62 or 65 should be given GIS at this new enhanced level. This money should be paid to someone who has been here for the 40yrs as laid out in the OAS in order to receive the enhanced GIS amount.

Finally - just so we are clear in understanding actual numbers - only 10.3% of seniors have an income above 80K/yr - which is 13k BELOW the amount of income when OAS starts to be clawed back. For those over 90k, its 7.3% of the population.

There are 8million individuals over the age of 65 in Canada.​

That 7.3% represents only 584,000 people.​

That's 5.2billion if you strike them all off from receiving any OAS (meaning 0$ OAS paid to them) if their income goes above 90k/yr​

If you use 80k/yr as the threshold, then its 10.3%, which is 802,000 people​

That's 7.2billion if you strike them all off from receiving any OAS​

​

What needs to be understood is that the above numbers are completely arbitrary. If an individual is part of the 7.3% population earning 91K or above has the OAS taken completely away from them, then their overall income will fall by 9K - meaning their income would now by 82k/yr, which would entitle them to OAS if its only for those below 90K. They would still receive OAS, just 8k instead of 9k/yr and their income would be 90k instead of 91k. The same thing would occur if you move OAS clawback back down to 80k. If someone is earning 81k and they have their OAS taken away, their income would fall to 72k - which means that they would receive OAS of 8k instead of 9k to bring them to the 80k maximum.

 

[Eaglelord17]

If Karl Marx were alive he would be proud of you. Every one who has earned wealth has done it by putting their efforts into earning it and they have paid a price for it. They have sacrificed time, often times family, health to achieve a goal. The same can be said to a certain extent about the 3rd generation ones. Very few are content and there are any number who are featured in the news with one problem or another. Prince Andrew is probably a great illustration of that. But back to that first generation. In return for those efforts they have provided a decent living for any number of families. Yes they ran sweatshops until minimum wages made them unprofitable. Cheers for the government. What did they accomplish? Those sweatshops are now in Bangladesh and China and the people who worked in them were left unemployed. My in-laws went through that and were forced to move into her father's home for years instead of their own home which they had to sell. So there are two sides or more to government interference.
You talk about all us rich retired folks enjoying government largesse. Many of us are still supplementing our kids. Many have taken out mortgages to facilitate their buying a home. Some have put in basement apartments so the kids could move back. Sure they go to Florida for two months in the winter. So what? The money I don't spend on gas going to work and the suits that are no longer required would cover much of those expenses and downsizing into a townhouse covers the rest: which is what many have done. There will always be poor people for any number of reasons. I just did a search for seniors earning in Canada. The median income is 31000 after taxes so you aren't chasing after a whole lot of people. Since the ceiling is 148,000 I would suggest that re-setting the roof at 125,000 might cover the annual meal costs on CanForce 1.(sarcasm) There are bigger and more blatant wastes to pursue.

You talk as those those who go to work 40+hours a week aren’t sacrificing as well.

You are talking about the mythical hardworking man who managed to achieve wealth against all odds. It’s a myth, in existence to keep your average joe believing they too can be part of it if they work hard enough.

Most don’t earn wealth, they make it through others efforts. By buying up the competition making it so you’re the only one on the playing field. Not too many mom and pop shops kicking around these days, it is all giant conglomerates who crush innovation and leave people with very limited choices. Anyone or thing which challenges those oligarchs gets crushed, either bought out, sued into the ground, price gouged until they fail, or legislated out of position.

You talk about supplementing your kids, good for you. I am talking about the working supplementing you through paying welfare to you in the form of OAS.

That supplementation shouldn’t also need to exist, we should be able to live a reasonable lifestyle if you work 40 hours a week.

The reality is that OAS was given to all individuals in the past - regardless of their income level - and now, with a growing senior population and many of those who paid attention to the 'save for tomorrow' advertisements put out by the banks/insurance/investment companies, the call is to pull that money back from them. Sorry, you saved and sacrificed and invested wisely and now you won't get anything from the government when you retire.

I've said my peace on here before about this and I'm not going to go through it all again.

If OAS is going to be changed/altered then I believe that it should be completely rolled into the GIS program and the 'participation award' that is OAS should be scrapped completely. A new line is drawn under seniors who earn a set threshold and they are given the 'Government Income Supplement' and it should be called that - 'a supplement' because we the taxpayer will be supplementing your income going forward.

Lastly, I also believe that the enhanced GIS should be somehow linked directly to the length of time one has lived in Canada. I am not in agreement that someone who was brought here in some family reunification plan at the age of 57 or 62 or 65 should be given GIS at this new enhanced level. This money should be paid to someone who has been here for the 40yrs as laid out in the OAS in order to receive the enhanced GIS amount.

Finally - just so we are clear in understanding actual numbers - only 10.3% of seniors have an income above 80K/yr - which is 13k BELOW the amount of income when OAS starts to be clawed back. For those over 90k, its 7.3% of the population.

There are 8million individuals over the age of 65 in Canada.​

That 7.3% represents only 584,000 people.​

That's 5.2billion if you strike them all off from receiving any OAS (meaning 0$ OAS paid to them) if their income goes above 90k/yr​

If you use 80k/yr as the threshold, then its 10.3%, which is 802,000 people​

That's 7.2billion if you strike them all off from receiving any OAS​

​

What needs to be understood is that the above numbers are completely arbitrary. If an individual is part of the 7.3% population earning 91K or above has the OAS taken completely away from them, then their overall income will fall by 9K - meaning their income would now by 82k/yr, which would entitle them to OAS if its only for those below 90K. They would still receive OAS, just 8k instead of 9k/yr and their income would be 90k instead of 91k. The same thing would occur if you move OAS clawback back down to 80k. If someone is earning 81k and they have their OAS taken away, their income would fall to 72k - which means that they would receive OAS of 8k instead of 9k to bring them to the 80k maximum.

80k wouldn’t be anywhere near where I would put OAS limitations in. Personally it would be at the 50k range for a individual or 80k for household income (and yes I would consider household income, seniors get to income split, already a huge boon above your average Canadian).

It’s welfare originally intended to allow seniors who would never have been able to retire to not have to work anymore, or to work much less hours. If your able to afford trips to Florida for months or supplement your child's income your making too much for me to be paying for it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The reality is that OAS was given to all individuals in the past - regardless of their income level - and now, with a growing senior population and many of those who paid attention to the 'save for tomorrow' advertisements put out by the banks/insurance/investment companies, the call is to pull that money back from them. Sorry, you saved and sacrificed and invested wisely and now you won't get anything from the government when you retire.

If you have done all that correctly why do you need a gov hand out ?

 

[Czech_pivo]

If you have done all that correctly why do you need a gov hand out ?

In the past OAS and Health Care were the 2 pillars where all Canadians were supposedly treated the same.

If OAS is going to be stripped away from the 'all of us' approach to another, then it should be killed off entirely and rolled into the Guaranteed Income Supplement and have it be represented formally as a government hand out.

I guess we are going down the path of a single pillar, health care, where all Canadians, regardless of income, will be treated equally.

 

[Czech_pivo]

80k wouldn’t be anywhere near where I would put OAS limitations in. Personally it would be at the 50k range for a individual or 80k for household income (and yes I would consider household income, seniors get to income split, already a huge boon above your average Canadian).

It’s welfare originally intended to allow seniors who would never have been able to retire to not have to work anymore, or to work much less hours. If your able to afford trips to Florida for months or supplement your child's income your making too much for me to be paying for it.

Under your proposal, the range would be 41k - because OAS is 9k a yr. So an individual's income (CPP + pension) can't be above 41k in order for them to receive the 9k a year in OAS.

 

[Halifax Tar]

In the past OAS and Health Care were the 2 pillars where all Canadians were supposedly treated the same.

If OAS is going to be stripped away from the 'all of us' approach to another, then it should be killed off entirely and rolled into the Guaranteed Income Supplement and have it be represented formally as a government hand out.

Agreed.

I guess we are going down the path of a single pillar, health care, where all Canadians, regardless of income, will be treated equally.

Unless you can afford to go else where, you know like our leaders and 'elite'.