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

[Brad Sallows]

Your generation started

Which generation? People ought to avoid that nonsense framing. At any given time there are members of at least four generations voting. With respect to Boomers in particular, the 1965 election was the first in which any Boomer could have been old enough to vote, and only very few at that time. Nothing in polling data suggest that there is any generation which is steadfastly voting in overwhelming majority numbers for whichever party is most dedicated to balanced budgeting.

Your generation was known for buying muscle cars as toys, but were still able to afford the house, wife and kids. A couple poor decisions made well young didn’t permanently fiscally cripple you.

That's just funny. Very few families actually owned muscle cars during the muscle car era; they were mostly a young single guy thing. (How many times have I heard the "I wish Dad had kept the [insert hot wheels here] after him and Mom got married" story...) Many families just had a succession of used cars, one or two at a time. Large RVs and fifth wheels were very uncommon.

Not much point trying to convince people who were alive during that time that the movie running in your head is what was actually happening.

You want real hardship, try starting over after being kicked off your farm by the Nazis and watching them destroy all the livestock and burn all the buildings down to the foundations.

[Add: skipping $3 coffees isn't the point. The point is a broad pattern of spending habits that don't include, among many other indulgences, $3 coffees.]

 

[mariomike]

You are going to have to find someone else to blame for all our ailments I am afraid.

After 27 pages , I doubt it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I feel for young people today, it is going to be a hard road to haul. But I also see young guys driving $60-70,000 trucks likley bought on a payment plan, I have no idea how they do that.

 

[OldSolduer]

I feel for young people today, it is going to be a hard road to haul. But I also see young guys driving $60-70,000 trucks likley bought on a payment plan, I have no idea how they do that.

Pay about 300 every 14 days

 

[ytz]

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.

Everything self-corrects. And this will too. Either we correct it in an orderly manner now or it unravels spectacularly later. France is going through the latter now. The bond market is forcing a hard reckoning there. The US is on the precipice of the same as their Social Security heads to zero in 2032. If our current deficits keep up, the same will happen here.

I would personally prefer we have this conversation calmly now. If not, come the 2030s, we'll be imposing severe cuts then.

 

[ytz]

Maybe a possible path forward concerning the potential reduction/elimination of the OAS at higher income levels is to make CPP payments 100% income tax exempt. This would soften the blow for some.
This would cut the current outlay of OAS payments, allowing for the money to be redirected into paying down the Federal debt (1st priority for me), followed by ensuring CAF budgets are fully funded and then if there is money still on the table (and there should be), allocating it to Childcare and other family enhancing programmes.

The deficit is massive an growing. And the majority of it is entitlment programs. There's no tinkering as a solution here. It will have to be means tested and capped at lower levels. Either we cap OAS at $100k now, or we can wait for 2035 and watch the financial situation drive a cap of $70k.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I feel for young people today, it is going to be a hard road to haul. But I also see young guys driving $60-70,000 trucks likley bought on a payment plan, I have no idea how they do that.

A small number. There is also substantially more who don’t. It is easy to point to the egregious examples and say ‘look it is all their own fault’ when the reality is multiple generations are struggling no matter how fiscally disciplined they are or not.

There is pretty much no one who buys a new vehicle cash these days, no matter what age group.

Another example of current generations being screwed is the 100k+ of student loans they are forced to take to get into entry level jobs that used to be a hire right from high school job.

My parents were married by 22, bought a house by 23, had kids by 25. All on a part time teaching and full time security guard salary. That isn’t possible today and it is no fault of the youth that it isn’t.

 

[ytz]

A small number. There is also substantially more who don’t. It is easy to point to the egregious examples and say ‘look it is all their own fault’ when the reality is multiple generations are struggling no matter how fiscally disciplined they are or not.

It's pure bullshit to see some young person owning a truck as an excuse. Maybe F150s are the new Avocado Toast.

Policy isn't made on vibes. It's made on facts. And the facts tell us that we have an ahistoric generational gap in both income and wealth. That's flat out insane. There's something wrong when 65+ males who should be retired, have the same income as 25-34 yr old males. This was definitely not the case when those 65 year olds were 25-34. When I say "ahistoric", here's the receipt:

But like I said, we sort it out now delicately or we can hurtle towards the eventual fiscal crisis and hard choices.

 

[ytz]

Heh. Fundamentals of personal finance unfolding over a lifetime are "excuses"?

More accurately a red herring. To distract from fundamentals being massively distorted.

You're expecting 25 year olds to do things today that most Canadian seniors absolutely did not do at 25.

 

[Brad Sallows]

More accurately a red herring. To distract from fundamentals being massively distorted.

You're expecting 25 year olds to do things today that most Canadian seniors absolutely did not do at 25.

I don't know what most Canadians of any generation did. I know what I did, and I know what life was like for my family up to three generations back. Post-World War II prosperity is a novelty in human history; all subsequent generations have benefited and all have behaved increasingly in turn as if the situation is an entitlement that can't go away. Those complaining about the situation have de facto admitted something is going wrong. That means they are going to have to do what every prior generation in human history had to do due to a contraction in circumstances: adapt or revolt. Revolutions almost always produce abject immiseration for everyone, so I recommend adaptation.

Almost every election is a 2015-like choice between more and less fiscal responsibility. Always take the more fiscally responsible choice. If you didn't or don't, your problems are partly of your own making. Those whose votes effectively put support behind this new spending program and that new spending program are responsible for their own problems. New programs squeeze out old programs. Massive government borrowing squeezes out private uses of some capital. Massive debts put more money in the pockets of those who can afford to lend.

Sure, fix OAS. But also fix a bunch of other things, and acknowledge that we're living pretty much at the pinnacle of human existence so far.

 

[ytz]

I don't know what most Canadians of any generation did.

That's what statistics are for bud. Nobody gives a shit about your anecdotes.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Policy isn't made on vibes. It's made on facts. And the facts tell us that we have an ahistoric generational gap in both income and wealth. That's flat out insane. There's something wrong when 65+ males who should be retired, have the same income as 25-34 yr old males. This was definitely not the case when those 65 year olds were 25-34. When I say "ahistoric", here's the receipt:

Predictable outcome of an economy in which the ratio of knowledge:manual work is increasing and the value of a knowledge worker increases with age and experience. These circumstances have never really existed in prior history, so obviously the results are going to be ahistoric.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

That's what statistics are for bud. Nobody gives a shit about your anecdotes.

Wind it back in lad. You've been warned before about this kind of behavior.
Its "social media", we actually "DO" give a shit" about personal anecdotes.

 

[ytz]

Predictable outcome of an economy in which the ratio of knowledge:manual work is increasing and the value of a knowledge worker increases with age and experience. These circumstances have never really existed in prior history, so obviously the results are going to be ahistoric.

You know you can actually click on the link and get the exact explanation for why this has happened. Let me help you:

While earnings for younger Canadians have stagnated and declined in the last 50 years on average, older Canadians gained an average of $6,400 more in employment income, and their investment/retirement income more than doubled, jumping up an additional $17,600 (after inflation) than in 1976.

Government transfers for senior men also doubled; income coming from OAS, Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), social assistance, and the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) provided the average 65-plus Canadian male senior an additional $7,000 more in income in 2023, compared to 1976.

A good chunk of that gain is pogey.

 

[ytz]

Wind it back in lad. You've been warned before about this kind of behavior.
Its "social media", we actually "DO" give a shit" about personal anecdotes.

Some very situational correction. When given stats, it's "But muh anecdotes...."

And when given anecdotes, it's "But muh stats....."

I am all for a factual discussion. The poster I responded started with the ridiculous insinuation that every younger generation today is fiscally irresponsible. Evidence for this? A substack trying to explain compounding and attempting to use that to justify generational inequality that has never existed before. Zero relevance or reference to actual stats. When actual stats are provided? "Well all I know is...."

Will you be correcting them for suggesting every young Canadian is lazy and financially inept?

 

[Brad Sallows]

That's what statistics are for bud. Nobody gives a shit about your anecdotes.

Everybody should. The anecdotes are a consequence of applying some simple ideas from the accumulated wisdom of centuries. The accumulated wisdom of centuries doesn't give a shit about contemporary statistics (measures) of people who forgot or ignore it, nor those who lack sufficient imagination or curiosity to even inquire about why measures are trending the way they are, let alone to understand them. If you don't really understand why income and asset accumulation are trending the way they are, you're unlikely to successfully change them; and, whatever it takes to change them might cause more damage than you think.

Imagine barring all the knowledge workers over 65 from working; what do you suppose would happen?

 

[ytz]

If you don't really understand why income and asset accumulation are trending the way they are

We do understand them. Hence the backlash we're seeing in one developed economy after another. You're just dancing around trying to justify why this should be accepted.

 

[ytz]

Imagine barring all the knowledge workers over 65 from working; what do you suppose would happen?

A much better employment market. Everybody thinks they are more important than they actually are. You get hit by a bus tomorrow or you retire, makes no difference. Your employer will replace you and move on.

But that's neither here nor there. I personally don't care about seniors working. I think it's sad as f that so many people have no identity beyond work. But I wouldn't argue for legislating against it. What I am against is high income people getting welfare because they magically hit an age threshold. And I am particularly against arbitrary thresholds that are entirely different for different groups. Why does CCB for families have half the threshold for OAS for seniors?

 

[Brad Sallows]

You know you can actually click on the link and get the exact explanation for why this has happened. Let me help you:

A good chunk of that gain is pogey.

You're not helping anyone; you're providing misleading information and thus misleading conclusions. CPP isn't pogey. GIS arguably isn't pogey (the maximum income threshold is low, well below median income let alone the cutoffs people on this site have been discussing for OAS).

What about OAS? Starts in 1952 at $40/mo, and now is $762.50/mo (age 64-75) and $838.75 (age 75+).
Subject to variations in inflation calculators and acknowledging that an inflation calculator isn't a perfect formula for comparing the numbers across time, I get $40 in 1952 inflating to $482.27 in 2026. History here if you want to go hunting for jumps and try to pin down why the increase is above CPI.

 

[Brad Sallows]

We do understand them. Hence the backlash we're seeing in one developed economy after another. You're just dancing around trying to justify why this should be accepted.

The backlashes are fundamentally due to governments over-promising and under-delivering, and a large fraction appears to be due to the cultural strain of policies preferred by elites and imposed on the underclasses, particularly immigration.