OAS already reduces to nil at a certain income level. It doesn’t go to everyone. The policy position being argued by some of us here is that as a form of welfare, the income cutoff should be reduced so it isn’t paid to high income seniors.
Seniors Benefits Discussion- split from Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???
- Thread starter ytz
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 42,364
- Points
- 1,210
The last CPC government attempted minor reform (no pun intended) by raising the qualifying age to 67.
Raising eligibility age progressively and decreasing indexing of the cutoff levels over time are probably the most palatable options available; unfortunately, those options also permit future governments to reverse the changes before full implementation.
Essentially, governments have to choose between boiling the frog or tearing off the band aid.
Raising eligibility age progressively and decreasing indexing of the cutoff levels over time are probably the most palatable options available; unfortunately, those options also permit future governments to reverse the changes before full implementation.
Essentially, governments have to choose between boiling the frog or tearing off the band aid.
- Reaction score
- 8,414
- Points
- 1,260
Understood - and I pointed out that only 7.3% of seniors earn over 90k a year. That number of 7.3% would be slightly peer at the 93k level where the clawback begins.
We are really talking g about a very small subset of the population- like 500,000 people.
- Reaction score
- 4,175
- Points
- 1,040
Sure, have it start clawing back at 41k and fully end at 50k, I am perfectly fine with that.
Considering that is still more than you make on a minimum wage job at 40hrs a week it is a reasonable threshold. That would keep the money going to those who actually need it and keep it out of the hands of those who don't.
Currently those making the equivalent of 46$ a hour are getting welfare before it starts getting clawed back. It ends at 152k or the equivalent of approximately 76$ a hour. Why does someone making that much believe they are entitled to welfare? It blows my mind this is even a discussion that needs to happen.
- Reaction score
- 8,414
- Points
- 1,260
Because, as I stated before - it was 1 of the 2 pillars that basically treated all CDN's the same in the past. OAS and Health Care. It's looking like its only going to be Health Care going forward.
If its going to be stripped away from so many Canadians, I will say again the OAS needs to be scrapped entirely and rolled into GIS - Guaranteed Income Supplement and treat it as a welfare program going forward.
OAS is overwhelmingly based on length of time living in Canada, over 18 to 65, which speaks to 'everyone', not a select number of people. I would suggest that well over 97-98% of all retirees receive some form of it today. That speaks to it being 'for all' - just like health care.
I will actually vote for that with the caveat that all GIS applies to Canadian citizens or residents who have been in Canada for a minimum length of time and have worked here as well and not just for 6 months. It was mentioned before and it is a valid issue. We shouldn't be subsidizing someone's grandparents who came over in their 50s and haven't worked anymore than we should be boosting my income; applying the same logic that my withdrawals are depriving others.
- Reaction score
- 8,414
- Points
- 1,260
Agreed - not looking to have have that kind of money rolled to those who have not contributed in a meaningful way to Canadian society.
- Reaction score
- 8,414
- Points
- 1,260
It more than likely goes to 97+% of all seniors to some extent at sometime during their retirement.
Yes, and? A bunch of them are probably high enough income that they should not be welfare recipients. If I retired at my current income I’d probably be one of them, and that’s absolutely absurd.
- Reaction score
- 8,414
- Points
- 1,260
I'm just pointing out, again, that OAS and Health Care were supposedly the 2 pillars of being a CDN where income/wealth didn't matter.
We have mismanaged the first pillar (OAS) to the point we are now actively talking about removing it from a substantial portion of the senior population due to those individuals playing by the rules that we laid out in front of them, which are, plan accordingly for your future, sacrifice early on for latter gains and investment early and often. Maybe the better approach for them was a Hedonistic lifestyle from 25 straight through to 65 with the belief that the Government would take complete care of them in the end. I don't hear anyone talking about scrapping the 10% bonus to OAS for seniors over the age 75, why not scrap that in its entirety?
We are close to losing the last pillar (Health Care) again to mismanagement. Willing to bet that some variation of a 2 tier approach formally gets rolled out in the next 15yrs. I mean, Ontario already has a 'Health Premium' where you are expected to pay even more in taxes, specifically for health care costs, if your income is above a certain threshold.
I have very little doubt, again maybe in the 15-20yr time horizon the TFSA really won't be 'tax free' for all once more and more individuals grow them into 1+million values. The government will put some surtax on those individuals sooner or later.
- Reaction score
- 9,143
- Points
- 1,160
15 to 20 years. Obviously something I'm not worried about seeing come to pass.
- Reaction score
- 8,414
- Points
- 1,260
LOL - I'll be sucking on jello at that point as well.
- Reaction score
- 2,467
- Points
- 1,260
Went to see my old partner. They were spoon feeding him tapioca with a bib.
- Reaction score
- 18,689
- Points
- 1,160
You should try NOT collecting OAS, I elected to take it when I was 70, it took letters, and calling them once a week for 6 months to get them to stop, which they finally did last Thursday. Now we have to wait for a letter confirming such, then take letter and cheques to the local Service Centre and return them, then await an amended T4 slip......
- Reaction score
- 8,414
- Points
- 1,260
I’m truly sorry to hear this.
The golden years aren’t really that golden a lot of the time.
The Missing Middle podcast had a great discussion on OAS.
For those who don't know, Sabrina Maddeaux is a National Post columnist. And Mike Moffat is a U of O prof who has been advocating on housing and economic productivity. The LPC has consulted him on some of these issues. Though, never fully implemented.
For those who don't know, Sabrina Maddeaux is a National Post columnist. And Mike Moffat is a U of O prof who has been advocating on housing and economic productivity. The LPC has consulted him on some of these issues. Though, never fully implemented.
- Reaction score
- 3,058
- Points
- 1,140
For those who don't have time
AI ASSISTED
This video, hosted by Sabrina Maddeaux and Mike Moffatt, explores the growing concerns regarding intergenerational wealth inequality in Canada, specifically focusing on how government debt and spending choices burden younger generations for the benefit of older ones.
Key Discussion Points:
This video, hosted by Sabrina Maddeaux and Mike Moffatt, explores the growing concerns regarding intergenerational wealth inequality in Canada, specifically focusing on how government debt and spending choices burden younger generations for the benefit of older ones.
Key Discussion Points:
- Old Age Security (OAS): The hosts identify OAS as the "800-pound gorilla" in the federal budget, costing over $100 billion annually (01:28-02:08). They argue that the system is flawed because it provides full benefits to wealthy seniors who may not need financial assistance, while younger Canadians struggle with high costs of living, housing, and poverty (02:09-03:27).
- The Role of Debt: While Moffatt explains that not all debt is bad—citing long-term infrastructure projects like the Gordie Howe Bridge as valid reasons to borrow (03:28-06:52)—he critiques the practice of using debt to fund current entitlements like OAS. He emphasizes that debt isn't "paid off" in the traditional sense but rather rolled over, leaving future generations to service the interest (06:53-08:48).
- Fiscal Sustainability: The hosts discuss how rising interest payments on public debt limit the government's ability to fund essential services like healthcare and education (09:16-10:17). They warn that if left unchecked, these fiscal pressures could lead to inflation or economic instability (10:18-11:37).
- Potential Solutions: The conversation touches on the political difficulty of reforming OAS, noting that older generations are a powerful voting bloc (12:08-14:54). While lowering taxes could help young people, the hosts suggest there are no "easy" solutions, as any significant change involves tough trade-offs between current program spending and future fiscal health (14:55-17:30).
- Reaction score
- 12,156
- Points
- 1,040
It'd be refreshing if any of the OAS critics would dig into the data and identify the fraction of the spending which ought to be retained for people in need, and the fraction which is going to people who reasonably do not need it. It'd be more refreshing if they proposed ways to shrink more than one transfer program.
OAS is not the problem. Deficit spending is the problem.
I rather wish someone would propose an arbitrary cut - say, $20B - from OAS and rework the formulae accordingly. What I then expect to happen, based on decades of federal and provincial politics, is that it will be seen as "found" money and spent on something else. Then we can stop pretending that a spending problem created by everyone who is sucking on some kind of government teat (while complaining about someone else's) is just an OAS problem.
OAS is not the problem. Deficit spending is the problem.
I rather wish someone would propose an arbitrary cut - say, $20B - from OAS and rework the formulae accordingly. What I then expect to happen, based on decades of federal and provincial politics, is that it will be seen as "found" money and spent on something else. Then we can stop pretending that a spending problem created by everyone who is sucking on some kind of government teat (while complaining about someone else's) is just an OAS problem.
- Reaction score
- 42,364
- Points
- 1,210
I'd love to see Carney propose a more radical rethink of OAS than Harper, then, after the complaints, move to something only a bit more radical than Harper.
For example, suggest OAS moving from 65 to 70 at a rate of 6 months per year (so a ten year transition) and inflating at half of the CPI increase.
For example, suggest OAS moving from 65 to 70 at a rate of 6 months per year (so a ten year transition) and inflating at half of the CPI increase.
Nah. We can do the same thing the Welfare Queens do when it's spending they don't like. See the crap in the HSR thread.
