mentalfloss

Is this kosher?

Excellent article that puts things into perspective. Why raising OAS to 67 doesn't make sense Prime Minister Stephen Harper raised eyebrows with a speech last week that fueled speculation he plans to lift the eligibility for Old Age Security to 67 (from 65). Harper’s argument that deep cuts are required to keep the program afloat deserves closer attention, even though he’s been backpedalling ever since. I have two points to make: — There is nothing new in the numbers he quotes about OAS costs rising as baby boomers retire. — There are ways to reduce costs that won’t incense Opposition parties and organized seniors’ groups. Let’s start with the statistics, which show that taxpaid pensions for people over 65 will triple to $108 billion by 2030 (from $35.6 billion in 2010). The Conservative government seems spooked by this figure. But why should it be? When looked at in the context of Canada’s growing economy, the cost of supporting the demographic bulge is not nearly as scary. As a percentage of our gross domestic product, Old Age Security will rise to 3.1 per cent by 2030 (from 2.3 per cent in 2010) — before declining again after the boomers retire. These statistics have been well-known and analyzed for many years. “I’m mystified. Why talk about it now?” says Malcolm Hamilton, an actuary at Mercer Consulting, who’s been following the debate for years. “I’m looking at numbers and projections that I’ve been looking at for over a quarter of a century — without anyone in government saying there was an unmanageable problem.” With lower fertility rates, one in three Canadians will be retired by 2030. Again, that’s old news. “It’s always been known that costs would escalate,” Hamilton emphasizes. “Canadians have been led to believe this would be taken care of. Governments would absorb the costs or find economies elsewhere. They should have said something earlier if they had concerns. “You can’t let people cruise up to retirement age without getting benefits they counted upon. It’s a little late to decide the system is unsustainable.” And why did Harper increase the guaranteed income supplement (topping up OAS for low-income seniors) in his last budget without hinting that public pensions were under threat? That’s what Hamilton wants to know. It’s clear the Conservatives are ideologically opposed to raising taxes. If they want to reform Old Age Security to spend money elsewhere, they can do so in other ways without making people wait two years to collect. I asked a few observers for ideas about reducing the cost that wouldn’t pinch as hard as raising the eligibility age. Here’s what they said: Change the inflation indexing of OAS payments. The OAS rates are adjusted every three months, while other program rates are adjusted once a year. Canada Pension Plan, for example, has only annual indexing. “While inflation has been low, it had a spike last year. Over a period of time, this change will add up to a fair amount,” says Gordon Pape, author of a new book about retirement realities. Change the way that OAS payments are taxed back. Affluent seniors with an individual income of $69,562 have to repay some of their benefits. They lose all their benefits with net income of $112,772. “You can up the clawback rate — start it earlier or phase it out faster,” says John Stapleton, a retired public servant with an interest in social welfare. “You can also disallow the phony deductions, such as the deductions for flow-through shares only available to well-to-do investors.” Stop indexing the clawback income levels. Conservative Finance Minister Michael Wilson didn’t index income levels when he brought in the OAS clawback in the 1990s, says Pape. Only when Jean Chretien’s Liberal government took power later was a change introduced to let the maximum income levels rise with inflation. Lowering clawback levels or removing indexing on clawback thresholds won’t hurt as many people as raising the age to 67, says Jim Yih, a retirement blogger and consultant. “If you take away two years of OAS, that’s $12,200 from every Canadian over the age of 65,” he says. “Before the government cuts the retirement income of taxpayers, they had better cut back on their overly lucrative gold-plated pensions first.” Old Age Security, unlike CPP, is a means-tested program. It favours those without resources over those who have saved for retirement. If changes are needed — and not everyone agrees they are — the government should tinker with the way it taxes back the OAS benefits instead of making across-the board cuts. Why raising OAS to 67 doesn't make sense - Moneyville.ca

Resign from what? Councillor to councillor?

Ford: "I did what the taxpayers want." Remix for councillor Ford's taxpayer statement.

I'm not sure if this is directly related to Stintz's plan, but councillors (including councillor rob ford) voted against a report which would reveal more information about the pros and cons of an Eglington crosstown line. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/02/01/toronto-stintz-ttc.html For those of you who don't mind a clearly slanted take on this, you can check out this opinion piece about Stintz's reaction here. Bonus video footage of Sue Ann Levy shilling included.

The NEB assessment actually does hold water unless the government decides to table legislation.

Some news outlets are actually downgrading his title now, calling him simply a councillor of T.O. - which admittedly, he is one of the councillors, but seems like he has as much power as Karen Stintz at this point.

Gateway panel urged to affirm it’s impartial

I didn't know it was that offensive, but I'll play nice then.

It's ironic that document came out shortly after Harper declared First Nations Appreciation Day.

Was just about to post that. I can't believe how much dirt has accumulated on this douche and there are still no real changes being proposed.

GDP was still going up during 2008-2009.

Far more support for Stintz’s transit plan than Rob Ford’s There is much stronger city council support for TTC Chair Karen Stintz’s transit plan than for Mayor Rob Ford’s blueprint for subway-based expansion, a survey of councillors shows. There are 45 members of council. Eighteen councillors have expressed support for Stintz’s plan or something like it. Nine are undecided. Only eight councillors, plus the mayor, have said they want to stick with the current plan. http://www.thestar.com/article/1122494--mayor-rob-ford-misrepresenting-rail-research-says-environmental-think-tank

And that pretty much does it.

Mayor Ford’s Facebook page misinterprets Pembina’s transit analysis While it’s true that a subway has the capacity to carry more riders than light rail transit (LRT) along Sheppard, our study shows that it would also cost about four times as much. Our study also shows that the population density along Sheppard is more suitable for an LRT; even based on projected growth it is unlikely that the full capacity of subway along Sheppard would be reached. Furthermore, the entire LRT plan would have served more Torontonians per dollar invested than the mayor’s current plan as well as reducing more greenhouse gas emissions and removing more vehicles from our severely congested streets. When crunching the numbers from the table above on per dollar invested basis, comparing the mayor’s current plan with the former LRT proposal: - brings rapid transit to less than half as many Torontonians as the former LRT plan per dollar invested; - serves 30 per cent fewer low-income residents despite costing 40 per cent more; and - removes fewer vehicles from traffic congestion per dollar invested. Mayor Ford’s current plan has additional shortcomings: - it does not include Finch, which is currently the busiest bus route in Toronto; - it leaves out the north-west region of Toronto, which has the highest low-income population and the worst access to rapid transit; and - it leaves out a guaranteed rapid transit line for Sheppard, since it is no longer included in the provincial budget and the private financing strategy being pursued cannot guarantee success. http://www.pembina.org/blog/606

Time limits coming for regulatory review hearings: Joe Oliver

Feds list First Nations, green groups as oilsands 'adversaries'

Exactly. He's shown his stripes. I can't blame him though, considering anyone who disagrees with Ford is now left of Stalin, including members of his own executive committee! Councillor Michelle Berardinetti, a member of the Ford executive who initially expressed support for modifying the plan, is unsure of her position now because of conflicting information over whether the money saved would be put to Sheppard. “I’m just hearing two different stories,” she said. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/25/im-building-subways-rob-ford/

What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Rob Ford compares political rivals to 'Joe Stalin'

No idea, but the Star isn't the only one getting behind the idea: Street-level transit plan gains traction - National Post Compromise would bring leg of Eglinton LRT back to street level - Globe and Mail TTC may be forced to reverse some cuts - Toronto Sun Oh wait.. that last one doesn't mention the proposition.. Gee.. I wonder why.

This Stintz really is an ignoramus. A new Toronto transit proposal delivers more bang for the $8.2 billion buck A new transit proposal from TTC chair Karen Stintz that would kick-start construction on three new transit lines using already-committed provincial dollars was gaining support Tuesday among councillors, particularly those in the increasingly powerful political middle. “If we can come to a resolution on this we can proceed quite quickly,” said Stintz, councillor for Eglinton-Lawrence. The plan would provide transit to tens of thousands more TTC riders than the existing understanding between Queen’s Park and Mayor Rob Ford. Instead of allocating $8.2 billion in provincial funds to tunnel the entire length of the Eglinton light rail line, the transit would run above-ground east of Laird Dr., freeing up between $1.5 billion and $2 billion for other projects. The savings could then be applied to bus rapid transit on Finch, where it would improve service to the city’s underserved northwest until funding to install light rail is there. A new Toronto transit proposal delivers more bang for the $8.2 billion buck

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford delays vote on sale of TCHC homes

His fallacious arguments would also explain why he sucks at philosophy. For those of us privileged enough to be part of the ivory tower (smirky smirky), I would highly recommend Joseph Heath's - Filthy Lucre: Economics for People Who Hate Capitalism. Does a really good job of critical analysis of both the left and right.