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

[Eaglelord17]

Because like health care, it’s the one and only other thing where we are mostly treated all the same.

And these seniors are making an income above the national average because they lived within their means and invested prudently.
With CPP only covering 25% of the gross income of the national average, it’s their pension and/or their savings that are putting them at this level.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the average pension for a newly retired firefighter in Ontario is?
Answer - ranges between 72-86k a year. Factor in a CPP at about 13-14k a year and voila, before OAS they are over the OAS clawback level. Are those individuals not good enough to receive OAS? What about the retired Nurse? Paramedic? It’s not all ‘rich people’ like it’s seen to be on here.

Why not skip the age part then and just do universal income, it isn’t like there is any real requirement for OAS beyond living in country for 10 years.

OAS was created to help seniors who otherwise couldn’t retire/reduce the amount they had to work. It was never intended to be a cash supplement for people with decent incomes.

And to answer your question no someone making 72-86k a year (well above the average income in Canada which is a average income of 61k or 46k median, i.e. what most are actually making) shouldn’t receive welfare.

 

[Altair]

Because like health care, it’s the one and only other thing where we are mostly treated all the same.

And these seniors are making an income above the national average because they lived within their means and invested prudently.
With CPP only covering 25% of the gross income of the national average, it’s their pension and/or their savings that are putting them at this level.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the average pension for a newly retired firefighter in Ontario is?
Answer - ranges between 72-86k a year. Factor in a CPP at about 13-14k a year and voila, before OAS they are over the OAS clawback level. Are those individuals not good enough to receive OAS? What about the retired Nurse? Paramedic? It’s not all ‘rich people’ like it’s seen to be on here.

I love how this argument is only used for seniors.

Young Canadians who live within their means and invested prudently are still cut off from CCB, but nooooo, when you apply the same thing to seniors, everyone loses their minds.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I love how this argument is only used for seniors.

Young Canadians who live within their means and invested prudently are still cut off from CCB, but nooooo, when you apply the same thing to seniors, everyone loses their minds.

CCB?
lol, do you think I ever got a penny in that?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Why not skip the age part then and just do universal income, it isn’t like there is any real requirement for OAS beyond living in country for 10 years.

OAS was created to help seniors who otherwise couldn’t retire/reduce the amount they had to work. It was never intended to be a cash supplement for people with decent incomes.

And to answer your question no someone making 72-86k a year (well above the average income in Canada which is a average income of 61k or 46k median, i.e. what most are actually making) shouldn’t receive welfare.

That is what GIS is for.

OAS was the attempt to treat everyone equally.

I said before to cut OAS for income over a much high level and to bring up GIS for those that worked for 20+yrs but were always lower income earners.

 

[Altair]

CCB?
lol, do you think I ever got a penny in that?

You're right, I forgot this entire conversation centred around you.

 

[Czech_pivo]

You're right, I forgot this entire conversation centred around you.

By the sounds of it I won’t be getting OAS either.

 

[Altair]

By the sounds of it I won’t be getting OAS either.

I wouldn't worry one lick about it.

Canada wont ever touch it.

This is just a giant whine fest about something everyone knows will never be addressed, even as it become increasingly unaffordable.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I wouldn't worry one lick about it.

Canada wont ever touch it.

This is just a giant whine fest about something everyone knows will never be addressed, even as it become increasingly unaffordable.

I don’t disagree that it shouldn’t be addressed.

 

[Altair]

I don’t disagree that it shouldn’t be addressed.

Yeah, great.

The electorate is of a different mind. I don't see any federal party looking to address this. Not one wants to lose boomers as a electoral bloc.

So spend away we shall, everything else be damned.

 

[ytz]

Out of curiosity, what do you think the average pension for a newly retired firefighter in Ontario is?
Answer - ranges between 72-86k a year. Factor in a CPP at about 13-14k a year and voila, before OAS they are over the OAS clawback level. Are those individuals not good enough to receive OAS? What about the retired Nurse? Paramedic? It’s not all ‘rich people’ like it’s seen to be on here.

Why is their profession relevant? Are some professions supposed to be worth more than others and given preferential access to public programs? Why?

The 100k is a joke.

More than 85% of Canadians don't make $100k. More than 90% of seniors don't make $100k. How out of touch do you have to be to not realize that $100k puts you in the top 15% of earners in the country and top 10% of seniors.

Those firefighters and nurses will get pensions like me. And I don't think it's good use of tax dollars (or deficits) to give people at our income level more.

Your complaint on the sunshine list? Sure. But I don't think that transfers well to the OAS discussion when 90% of the country doesn't see that kind of money in retirement.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Why is their profession relevant? Are some professions supposed to be worth more than others and given preferential access to public programs? Why?

Because I’m trying to make the point that it’s ordinary people making this kind of retirement income level, it’s not some high powered Bay Street individual.

A number of years ago NDP leader Alexa McDonough was at a party rally in Oshawa I believe surrounded by CAW autoworkers where she started hammering about taxing those heavily above 100k a year. She received very lukewarm clapping and cheering by the workers. A number people in the crowd were interviewed afterwards abut this. To a person they all said, why was she going to heavily tax those over 100k, they wanted the ‘really rich to be taxed’. The news person said well over a 100k was ‘really rich.’ All those interviewed said that they made over 100k with overtime as an autoworker and they weren’t rich at all.

More than 85% of Canadians don't make $100k. More than 90% of seniors don't make $100k. How out of touch do you have to be to not realize that $100k puts you in the top 15% of earners in the country and top 10% of seniors.

In southern Ontario 100k is not rich or well off by any means. Your middle class.

Those firefighters and nurses will get pensions like me. And I don't think it's good use of tax dollars (or deficits) to give people at our income level more.

Your complaint on the sunshine list? Sure. But I don't think that transfers well to the OAS discussion when 90% of the country doesn't see that kind of money in retirement.

Income needs vastly vary across this country due to massive differences in costs of living.
Making 100k as a teacher in Oakville vs a teacher Timmins or Moncton or Levis or Medicine Hat.
Keep hammering the 20% that pays 65% of all the income taxes and watch this country become more impoverished over the next 20yrs.

 

[Czech_pivo]

To be crystal clear - around 25-28% of those working full time in Ontario gross over 100k a year.

Do not confuse % of the total population or those working part time referring to this.

Again, just over 1 in 4 people working full time in Ontario gross 100k/yr.

 

[Eaglelord17]

100k is not rich today. A salary of 100k today is the equivalent of about 56,500$ in 2000. 100k in 2000 is equivalent to 177k today.

That still doesn’t mean it is a salary deserving of welfare, it is well above the national average.

I support my family (wife and disabled child) on a single income of about 115k, it isn’t glamorous but it is doable. A single senior getting into these ranges does not need my tax dollars, it is just providing them more luxury.

 

[mariomike]

Why is their profession relevant? Are some professions supposed to be worth more than others and given preferential access to public programs? Why?

Not "worth more". Just different.

In Ontario municipalities ,

The OMERS Plan permits OMERS employers and unions to choose to provide NRA 60 benefits for all or a class of its police officers, firefighters or paramedics.

 

[ytz]

Because I’m trying to make the point that it’s ordinary people making this kind of retirement income level, it’s not some high powered Bay Street individual.

Nobody made this comparison. Just you.

A number of years ago NDP leader Alexa McDonough was at a party rally in Oshawa I believe surrounded by CAW autoworkers where she started hammering about taxing those heavily above 100k a year. She received very lukewarm clapping and cheering by the workers. A number people in the crowd were interviewed afterwards abut this. To a person they all said, why was she going to heavily tax those over 100k, they wanted the ‘really rich to be taxed’. The news person said well over a 100k was ‘really rich.’ All those interviewed said that they made over 100k with overtime as an autoworker and they weren’t rich at all.

We're not talking about taxing people who make $100k more. We're talking about but giving them welfare. You know who doesn't get welfare despite making $100k? Those same auto workers. And every other working person. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills having to explain this.

Not "worth more". Just different.

In Ontario municipalities ,

They were trying to tug at heart strings pointing out those professions. And they said so above. Public policy doesn't (and shouldn't) care about what you do for a living.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Nobody made this comparison. Just you.



We're not talking about taxing people who make $100k more. We're talking about but giving them welfare. You know who doesn't get welfare despite making $100k? Those same auto workers. And every other working person. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills having to explain this.



They were trying to tug at heart strings pointing out those professions. And they said so above. Public policy doesn't (and shouldn't) care about what you do for a living.

Whatever, you know best.

 

[MilEME09]

This conversation is very amusing.

Older Canadians sit in million dollar houses they bought at many times less than that worrying about what cottage or boat they might be asked to give up while telling younger Canadians to have more kids while they sit in small houses or rent while receiving a childcare subsidiaries that don't even come close to covering the time energy and money put into raising a child.

Meanwhile birth rates have plummeted to 1.25 children per women.

I hope everyone loves immigration. It's down now, but will need to come back at some point because otherwise we are shrinking fast.

People arent going to have kids if they cant afford to. I bet if you broke that birth rate down be region, Vancouver and Toronto would be even lower. Many barely can afford a one bedroom apartment, let alone a second plus expenses of raising a child. Affordable housing and rentals is one step to enabling a higher birth rate. People need to feel financially comfortable to bring a child into the world.

 

[Jarnhamar]

People arent going to have kids if they cant afford to.

To some people having kids means a guaranteed income.

 

[ytz]

Whatever, you know best.

I never said that. But I don't think emotional manipulation is fair or productive. "Won't somebody think about the nurses and firefighters and auto workers and their six figure pensions?"

Again, I'll ask two simple questions:

1) Why does somebody's profession matter in this debate?

2) Why should the taxpayer subsidize somebody with a six figure income?

You're dodging those questions by resorting to emotional appeals. You could just state your position on those questions.

Personally, I don't care if somebody is a Bay Street Banker, a hooker, or a janitor. If they make six figures, they don't need a bonus from the rest of us. Save that for the million other needs we have. Lest we forget Canada is the only G7 country without a universal school lunch program, high speed rail or ai aircraft carrier. Our gaps are across the spectrum.

 

[MilEME09]

To some people having kids means a guaranteed income.

I have 3, id like to meet the person who thinks 1200 a month for the first couple years is enough. Sure it help but it also caps off and goes down as they age.