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

[Jarnhamar]

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

That's why poor people and rich people should pay the same amount of taxes IMO.

 

[ytz]

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.

Boomers stuck on tropes from the 80s about Welfare Queens living on child benefits. Meanwhile in 2026, CCB for the average middle class family doesn't even cover after school care.

 

[mariomike]

Boomers stuck on tropes from the 80s about Welfare Queens living on child benefits.

I remember an anecdote 50 years ago , as told by President Reagan .

There's a woman in Chicago. She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veterans’ benefits on four nonexisting deceased husbands.
And she's collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax‐free cash income alone is over $150,000.

The Real Story of Linda Taylor, America’s Original Welfare Queen

Ronald Reagan loved to tell stories. When he ran for president in 1976, many of Reagan’s anecdotes converged on a single point: The welfare state is br ...

www.slate.com

 

[dapaterson]

Odd how none of those folks ever have names or are ever prosecuted. Almost as if they're invented characters to instill rage at poverty programs to permit additional tax breaks for top income earners.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Comparisons between workers and retirees making the same money are irrelevant.

Pretty much everyone retired from some kind of ordinary work paid taxes to support someone else's OAS; some of them are bound to want their fair share back. This feeling is bound to be more acute among some of the people who raised families before recent additions to transfers, but are paying for those now, too.

A way to resolve this is to impose stricter means testing on everything. Set the absolute cutoff (zero benefit for all programs) at median income, and scale it from there (full benefits at some lower income levels).

 

[YZT580]

Odd how none of those folks ever have names or are ever prosecuted. Almost as if they're invented characters to instill rage at poverty programs to permit additional tax breaks for top income earners.

oh but they are. Absolute discharge because of upbringing. Cases dismissed because of court priorities. Reporters don't cover or report on crimes with penalties under two years generally unless they should have been well over 3 but the judges let them go. Lots of reasons. The police generally do or at least did their job.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Here is some illumination on net worth disparity across generations.

In referring to a thought experiment ("Equal Land"), the author observes "The fundamental driver of inequality in net worth across generations comes down to just two simple things: time and compounding."

That statement also applies to the root of much disparity in the real world.

 

[ytz]

Excuses to distract from older folks having a disproportionate portion of both income and wealth. To a level that is actually ahistoric for most developed societies around the world. It's not just Canada.

France is a perfect example of where this leads. Seniors in France have incomes higher than the average working person. There is no scenario where any of this is defensible.

We've gone from making sure seniors don't starve to now starving the grandkids in Canada. Again. Not defensible.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

We've gone from making sure seniors don't starve to now starving the grandkids in Canada. Again. Not defensible.

But have we? We are certainly not starving the development of new and broader definitions of "poverty"

5 mins on Google:

In Canada, the definitions and measurements of child poverty have significantly evolved, transitioning from a purely economic debate over relative low-income to a legally codified absolute standard, with recent shifts toward measuring multi-dimensional deprivation. [1, 2] For decades, Canada famously lacked a single, official definition of poverty. Instead, public policy and research relied on three distinct metrics developed by Statistics Canada, which evolved child poverty definitions through three major phases: [1, 2] 1. The Relative Metrics Era: LICO and LIM (1960s–1990s) Historically, child poverty was evaluated through indicators that measured income inequality rather than literal deprivation: [1, 2] Low Income Cut-Offs (LICO): Established in the 1960s, LICO identified families who spent 20 percentage points more of their income on basic necessities (food, clothing, and shelter) than the average Canadian family. While heavily relied upon during the 1989 cross-party house resolution to "eliminate child poverty by the year 2000," LICO became increasingly outdated because its base spending calculations were frozen after 1992. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Low Income Measure (LIM): Introduced in the early 1990s, LIM is a strictly relative metric set at 50% of the median national after-tax income, adjusted for family size. While Statistics Canada technically classified LIM as a measure of low-income rather than poverty, advocacy networks like Campaign 2000 heavily used it to capture how far poor children were falling behind the mainstream standard of living. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] 2. The Absolute Standard: The Market Basket Measure (2000s–2018) To address the limitations of relative metrics—which could counterintuitively show "poverty reduction" during economic recessions when the national median income dropped—the federal government moved toward an absolute model. [1, 2] Market Basket Measure (MBM): Developed in the late 1990s, the MBM determines the actual cost of a specific "basket" of essential goods and services (including nutritious food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and other basic needs) across 50 different geographic regions. [1, 2, 3] The 2018 Official Poverty Line: Under the Poverty Reduction Act of 2018, Canada adopted the MBM as its first official, legally binding poverty line. This fundamentally shifted the definition of child poverty from "earning less than your neighbors" to "not having enough disposable income to buy community-specific bare essentials". [1, 2, 3, 4] 3. The Contemporary Era: Multi-Dimensional and Child-Specific Deprivation (Present) In recent years, experts and institutions have pushed past income-centric metrics altogether, arguing that household income fails to capture how resources are distributed specifically to children. [1, 2] Child Material Deprivation Index: Pioneered by academics alongside Food Banks Canada, this emerging metric mirrors European Union frameworks. Rather than looking at bank accounts, it directly measures real-world outcomes and deprivation—tracking whether a child lacks access to specific requirements like annual dental checkups, appropriate clothing for social environments, or celebratory items like small birthday gifts. [1] Metric Type Core Definition Main Application/Era LICO Relative / Hybrid Spending 20%+ more on food/shelter/clothing than average. Dominant metric from 1960s to late 1990s. LIM Strictly Relative Income less than 50% of the national median. Preferred for international comparisons (e.g., UNICEF). MBM Absolute Disposable income below the local cost of a basic basket of goods. Canada's official poverty line since 2018. Material Deprivation Outcome-based Direct lack of specific essential items or experiences. Modern framework targeting child-specific welfare. Choosing one metric over another doesn't just change the statistical nuances; it completely rewrites the narrative of how many children are in poverty and whether government interventions are working. Depending on whether an absolute, relative, or outcome-based framework is used, the baseline poverty numbers drastically shift, leading to different policy conclusions. 1. The Massive Baseline Gap: MBM vs. LIM The most stark discrepancy appears when contrasting Canada's official absolute metric (Market Basket Measure - MBM) against its primary relative metric (Low Income Measure - LIM). The MBM paints a more optimistic picture: Because it ties poverty strictly to the hyper-local cost of basic physical goods, it filters out general societal wealth. The LIM portrays a far more widespread issue: Because it anchors poverty to 50% of the national median income, it captures societal exclusion. Data highlights this deep divide: UNICEF Canada notes that child poverty rates fluctuate heavily by choice of metric. For instance, a recent spike in poverty saw the child poverty rate recorded at 6.4% under the MBM, but a staggering 17.8% under the LIM. [1] Using the MBM implies that roughly 1 in 15 Canadian children live in poverty, while switching to the LIM suggests it is closer to nearly 1 in 5. 2. The Recessional Paradox (Moving in Opposite Directions) During economic shifts, these metrics can counterintuitively move in opposite directions, confusing public perception: During a recession: If the national median income drops, the LIM threshold drops with it. This can mathematically result in fewer children qualifying as "low income" under the LIM, creating an illusion that child poverty decreased during a financial crisis. Meanwhile, if food and rent prices spike during that same recession, the MBM poverty rate will surge because the baseline "basket" became more expensive. During economic growth: If the middle-class gets significantly richer but low-income wages stagnate, the national median income climbs. The LIM line moves upward, meaning more children are classified as living in poverty relative to their peers. Conversely, the MBM rate might stay totally flat or drop if the absolute cost of bread, milk, and housing remains stable. 3. Masking Living Costs: The Geographic Blind Spot The choice of metric heavily distorts regional data. Because the LIM relies on a single national standard, it fails to account for cost-of-living differences between provinces. Under the LIM, a family making $35,000 in rural New Brunswick is viewed identically to a family making $35,000 in downtown Toronto. The MBM accounts for 50 distinct regions. When applied, it reveals that large urban centers actually suffer from much deeper poverty rates due to sky-high shelter costs, a reality completely masked by relative national income calculations. [1] 4. Direct Deprivation vs. Income Measurements The most modern discrepancy lies between income-based metrics (MBM/LIM) and outcome-based metrics (Material Deprivation Index). A family can mathematically sit just above the official MBM poverty line due to government transfers like the Canada Child Benefit. However, inflation and accumulated debt might mean they still face severe deprivation. Maytree foundation policy data emphasizes this: while Canada's income-based poverty rate hovered around 11% overall, food insecurity concurrently impacted 30.8% of Canadian children. This demonstrates that income tracking significantly underestimates the number of children experiencing actual physical scarcity. [1] Direct Metric Comparison Metric Relative Child Poverty Estimate Main Statistical Blind Spot How It Responds to Inflation Market Basket Measure (MBM) Lower (~6-10%) Misses families who pay down heavy debt or face hidden costs outside the fixed "basket." Surges quickly as the localized cost of physical goods rises. Low Income Measure (LIM) Higher (~15-18%) Fails to account for cheaper/expensive local regions or actual purchasing power. Moves slowly, anchoring entirely to whether middle-class incomes are rising or falling. Material Deprivation Index Highest (~25-30%) Relies on subjective thresholds of what items are deemed "essential." Spikes aggressively as households sacrifice items like dentist trips to pay for food.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Excuses to distract from older folks having a disproportionate portion of both income and wealth. To a level that is actually ahistoric for most developed societies around the world. It's not just Canada.

France is a perfect example of where this leads. Seniors in France have incomes higher than the average working person. There is no scenario where any of this is defensible.

We've gone from making sure seniors don't starve to now starving the grandkids in Canada. Again. Not defensible.

I have no more words on this subject after this.

What shocks me most is how selfish some members of the older generations can be, and how fiercely they defend what they believe they are entitled to.

In doing so, they are leaving behind a poor legacy, one that I do not believe will be remembered fondly. They have become an example of the saying: hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create soft men, and soft men create hard times.

Unfortunately, it seems they are now the soft men creating hard times for those who follow.

 

[YZT580]

Excuses to distract from older folks having a disproportionate portion of both income and wealth. To a level that is actually ahistoric for most developed societies around the world. It's not just Canada.

France is a perfect example of where this leads. Seniors in France have incomes higher than the average working person. There is no scenario where any of this is defensible.

We've gone from making sure seniors don't starve to now starving the grandkids in Canada. Again. Not defensible.

It isn't the grandparents that are starving the kids: its you (that is the current working group) who are doing so by insisting on being pampered by the state and paying to assuage your guilt over everything from rain forests through to the treatment of polar bears at the dump in Churchill instead of taking responsibility for this your world. We gave it to you in not too bad a shape back around and just before the turn of the century and you have screwed it up royally. You go out and buy your quad., your boat, your F150 and your other toys but expect the government (me) to pay for your children's daycare, their breakfast and, at least in Toronto, now their lunch as well. Since the well is going dry you push to remove benefits from your grandparents or stick them in homes so you can cash in on the house that they paid for, dollar by dollar. The seniors have had very little to do with the price of housing being what it is. In fact, many seniors that I know have paid their grandkids down payments or are contributing to the rent. So until you are ready to cash in your toys to help the kids and they are your kids, not your parents', kindly drop it.

Grandparents have money because they invested instead of buying. I am earning well above average on my investments: not any pension plan and I am not an exceptional investor; just followed sensible advise although it took a bit of time and a lot of nail biting before I wised up.