New bill would see immigrant seniors receiving Old Age Security paymen

[scribblet]

No way should this pass, why should we pay old age to people who have never contributed to the country in any way.. I'm writing now...

New bill would see immigrant seniors receiving Old Age Security payments sooner

http://etobicokeguardian.com/parkdale/news/article/49297

BY MIKE ADLER

June 3, 2008 03:37 PM

Supporters of immigrant seniors in Toronto say MPs have a chance this month to change a federal law that leaves thousands in the city in poverty.

Most immigrants these days arrive from countries - among them China, Pakistan and African nations - without a social security agreement with Canada.

As a result, Canada won't give immigrant seniors its Old Age Security payments until they live here for 10 years, which a coalition of advocates say is unjust.

They want MPs to pass a Liberal private member's bill, slated for its third reading in Ottawa this month, that would cut the wait to three years.

Increasingly, families of newcomers are in financial trouble because of poor employment, but cannot get any provincial assistance for elderly relatives because of sponsorship pledges lasting 10 years, said Ramos Duberlas, director of Toronto's Hispanic Development Council.

Some immigrant seniors live in poor conditions because they don't want to be a burden on their families, the Riverdale resident said this week. "People get very isolated. Quality of life and health deteriorate."

If newcomers in the city are unable to find professional work, they often bring a parent over to Canada to help with child care and other tasks, said Karen Sun, executive director of the Chinese Canadian National Council-Toronto Chapter.

But though many extended immigrant families remain close, often it's out of necessity, not desire, Sun said, adding living with their adult children can mean lost independence for seniors.

cont...

[Guest American Woman]

If people who have never paid into social security can come over to Canada and collect it, where is the money to come from?

[myata]

I dunno, maybe we'll print it? Guess we'll have to ask the sponsor of the bill (pun intended)?

[Renegade]

If people who have never paid into social security can come over to Canada and collect it, where is the money to come from?

Old Age Security is basicly a form of welfare. It is funded through general revenues.

[Riverwind]

Increasingly, families of newcomers are in financial trouble because of poor employment, but cannot get any provincial assistance for elderly relatives because of sponsorship pledges lasting 10 years, said Ramos Duberlas, director of Toronto's Hispanic Development Council.

People who can't support their parents should not be sponsering them in the first place.

[scribblet]

You don't need very much to sponsor them, even so many people end up defaulting on their obligations.

However, this bid to get more money for aging parents is nothing but a grab for taxpayer dollars, it's wrong.

Has anyone else heard of this bill before, it got to 3rd reading with little publicity it seems.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...60216/20060217/

The Immigration department processes some 60,000 applications every year, from Canadian citizens or permanent residents who want to sponsor a relative or spouse to come to Canada. Government figures obtained by CTV estimate up to 14 per cent of those sponsors abandon their responsiblities and default on the agreement. That's some 8 thousand new immigrants each year, left without the financial support they are entitled to. Often, these people end up being assisted by Canadian taxpayers.

"Why are they (Immigration) not doing anything?" asked Suter. "Are they only interested in people coming here, then once they come here they are on their own?"

CTV discovered the Immigration department doesn't do much, in fact, to make deliquent sponsors pay. The department simply doesn't let them sponsor anyone else. Citizenship and Immigration leaves it up to the provinces to try to go after those who are in default, but that only happens if the person they sponsored goes on provincial social assistance.

[Guest American Woman]

Old Age Security is basicly a form of welfare. It is funded through general revenues.

Is that true of everyone?-- Does every Canadian receive Old Age Security when they reach retirement age the same way Americans (who've paid into it) receive Social Security? Does everyone receive the same amount, unlike Americans who receive according to how much they've paid into it?

[Riverwind]

Is that true of everyone?-- Does every Canadian receive Old Age Security when they reach retirement age the same way Americans (who've paid into it) receive Social Security? Does everyone receive the same amount, unlike Americans who receive according to how much they've paid into it?

Canada's income support system is split into three parts: CPP, OAS and GIS. CPP is like the US Social Security where benefits are tied to contributions. OAS and GIS are welfare payments that are clawed back from seniors with incomes that exceed certain thresholds.

[Guest American Woman]

Canada's income support system is split into three parts: CPP, OAS and GIS. CPP is like the US Social Security where benefits are tied to contributions. OAS and GIS are welfare payments that are clawed back from seniors with incomes that exceed certain thresholds.

So people who've earned a lot are essentially paying the OAS and GIS payments? What's the difference between OAS and GIS?

[Riverwind]

So people who've earned a lot are essentially paying the OAS and GIS payments? What's the difference between OAS and GIS?

Just like every other universal program. Not sure on the difference. The clawbacks are the government's safety valve for when too many people start to collect the government will clawback more which is politically easier to do than cutting payments. In the long term the Liberal bill will simply screw all seniors and soon to be seniors because the increased clawbacks will start sooner than they would have otherwise. Edited June 15, 2008 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

Just like every other universal program.

Thank you for the information. I'm curious to know/understand how things are in Canada compared to here.

The way I understand it, though, it's not just like every other universal program because it's a payment made that one collects on themself. At least that's the way it is in the States. For that reason, there's an income cap on paying Social Security since there's a cap on Social Security payments received.

Not sure on the difference. The clawbacks are the government's safety valve for when too many people start to collect the government will clawback more which is politically easier to do than cutting payments. In the long term the Liberal bill will simply screw all seniors and soon to be seniors because the increased clawbacks will start sooner than they would have otherwise.

What are "clawbacks?"

[Riverwind]

What are "clawbacks?"

You make more than X dollars then you must repay part of the OAS/GIS received at tax time (this is in addition to any taxes payable on income). If you make enough money you repay the entire OAS/GIS benefit. The clawbacks mean that some people with RRSPs have effective tax rates >75% because of the benefits lost. This is different from social security where you get to keep the entire payment no matter how much you make.

[Guest American Woman]

That is quite a bit different from our Social Security system; I'm guessing there are some who have a problem with that. I can understand why people would have a problem with elderly immigrants who've never paid into the system getting benefits, too.

[scribblet]

Is that true of everyone?-- Does every Canadian receive Old Age Security when they reach retirement age the same way Americans (who've paid into it) receive Social Security? Does everyone receive the same amount, unlike Americans who receive according to how much they've paid into it?

Everyone receives it regardless of income, but it it's clawed back if you make over a certain amount.. GIS is a supplement for people on very low incomes, they have to qualify. The OAS is paid for out of general revenues, we don't pay additional premiums for it, however, there was a time during the sixties when there was a premium/tax for it, I think it lasted for around 3 - 4 years.

Most people don't look at it as welfare, they figure they've paid taxes all their lives, this is one of the benefits, and I don't have a problem with it being clawed back if you make a lot of money.

It is still not right that people who sponsor elderly parents should expect the taxpayer's to help pay for them. I've asked around and no one was aware of this until now.

[eyeball]

I can understand why people would have a problem with elderly immigrants who've never paid into the system getting benefits, too.

I can understand how bringing elderly immigrants into Canada with the aim of keeping families together helps contribute to Canada's values. As far as the money goes...somehwere in the scheme of things are immigrant families who come here because subsidies paid to people here helped depressed foreign economies to the exent the people there felt compelled to leave. I have a real problem with further damaging developing economies by only inviting their professionals to immigrate here.

I have no problem with deliberately choosing to trump economics with virtue if all it takes is a little compassion. As for the money...I know damn well the government will be giving just as much or more to some filthy-rich corporation that's taken far more out of the system than its ever put in.

Besides all this, what would Jesus do?

[fellowtraveller]

I can understand how bringing elderly immigrants into Canada with the aim of keeping families together helps contribute to Canada's values. As far as the money goes...somehwere in the scheme of things are immigrant families who come here because subsidies paid to people here helped depressed foreign economies to the exent the people there felt compelled to leave. I have a real problem with further damaging developing economies by only inviting their professionals to immigrate here.

I have no problem with deliberately choosing to trump economics with virtue if all it takes is a little compassion. As for the money...I know damn well the government will be giving just as much or more to some filthy-rich corporation that's taken far more out of the system than its ever put in.

Besides all this, what would Jesus do?

It is very hard to follow your 'logic' here.

Fiorst off, Canda does not just invite 'professionals ' here. Some immigration is achieved by admitting people who qualify by dint of education, language skills, work skills and other metrics. Nothing wrong with that.....

Ohters are admitted because they are needy. Nothing wrong with that ither, but because one person is admitted and may need helpd getting established in a productive lifestyle does not mean that every member of their extended family is automatically granted the same privilege. And note that admission to this or any nation is not a right but a privilege.

That is not racist or discriminatory, it is simple common sense.

[MontyBurns]

I can understand how bringing elderly immigrants into Canada with the aim of keeping families together helps contribute to Canada's values. As far as the money goes...somehwere in the scheme of things are immigrant families who come here because subsidies paid to people here helped depressed foreign economies to the exent the people there felt compelled to leave. I have a real problem with further damaging developing economies by only inviting their professionals to immigrate here.

I have no problem with deliberately choosing to trump economics with virtue if all it takes is a little compassion. As for the money...I know damn well the government will be giving just as much or more to some filthy-rich corporation that's taken far more out of the system than its ever put in.

It's a good thing you dont run the finance or immigration departments.

[MontyBurns]

No way should this pass, why should we pay old age to people who have never contributed to the country in any way.. I'm writing now...

New bill would see immigrant seniors receiving Old Age Security payments sooner

http://etobicokeguardian.com/parkdale/news/article/49297

BY MIKE ADLER

June 3, 2008 03:37 PM

cont...

I am now absolutely disgusted upon reading this. :angry:

[August1991]

That is quite a bit different from our Social Security system; I'm guessing there are some who have a problem with that. I can understand why people would have a problem with elderly immigrants who've never paid into the system getting benefits, too.

In some ways, the Canadian system is different from the US system but in essence, it's identical.

First of all, I entirely agree with Riverwind's description above yet I want to post here because this thread is an invitation to a remarkable insight into our pensions system, while at the same time putting scriblett's OP in a clearer light.

----

Canadian governments pay money to older people through three distinct calculations and in addition, older people are entitled to an age exemption (fourth calculation) on their income tax declarations. First, Old Age Pension is given to anyone over the age of 65 but is subject to income tax. Second, Guaranteed Income Supplement (GAINS) is paid to anyone over 65 but is subject to a stricter "tax" (clawback) so that it largely disappears when someone has an income around $20,000/year. Third, CPP (Canada Pension Plan) is paid to anyone using criteria based on age and previous contributions (taxes) that they may have paid.

Here's the key insight: However you slice this, Canada's various pensions schemes are largely transfers from younger people to older people. If you are over 65, and meet other criteria, you will receive money from the State. Mostly younger taxpayers will pay this money to you. At heart, the only issues are what are the criteria used to determine whether you receive a "pension" benefit, how large that benefit will be and then how the rest of us (mostly younger people) will pay into the pot.

In general, if you are rich and old, your benefit will be small. If you are poor and old, the benefit will be larger. If you have not been resident in Canada for at least 10 years, then your benefit will be much smaller. The proposed legislation (noted in the OP) wants to change this last criteria. It wants to remove the 10 year residency criteria and increase transfers for some older (poor) people.

----

American Woman, you may be curious about why Canada has three (in fact, four) transfer schemes for older people. The Old Age Pension dates from the 1920s. It was a straight transfer to older people. In the 1960s, the Canada Pension Plan was broadly extended. In theory, this tied benefits paid to contributions made but in fact, it didn't. Initial retirees immediately received full benefits and like any State scheme, benefits are never tied to contributions. GAINS was added to the OAP in the 1960s to bolster payments to poor, older people.

As in the US, we have rejiggered these schemes (and the tax system) many times over the years. (Keep in mind the fourth "transfer" scheme for old people in Canada, the higher basic tax exemption for anyone over 65.)

[incidentally, US Social Security dates from the 1930s and is far more generous than Canada's Canada Pension Plan. Moreover, I haven't even gone into the complexities of state or local government transfer schemes. Quebec administers its own pension plan. Many Quebecers falsely believe that this gives them some kind of autonomy.]

I have several ideas about all these schemes: First, older people tend to be the wealthiest in Canada. It seems odd to transfer money from poor (young) people to rich (old) people. Second, it's probably civilized (and Confucious) to offer old (honest) people a reward. This inspires young people to be honest and civilized to win the same reward when they are old. Third, it is wrong to believe that individuals pay into a State pension scheme and then receive their pay out. State support for older people are transfer systems and the only questions are who is eligible and who pays. As usual in State schemes, if you work and save, you will merely transfer money to your profligate neighbour.

Now then returning to the OP, should recent older immigrants be entitled to pension benefits? In particular, should we remove the residency restriction? I think so. It seems to me that if we let these people into Canada, we should grant them the same basic benefits as other Canadians. I have never felt comfortable with this residency rule.

Edited June 15, 2008 by August1991

[MontyBurns]

In particular, should we remove the residency restriction? I think so. It seems to me that if we let these people into Canada, we should grant them the same basic benefits as other Canadians.

But these people didnt contribute.

[August1991]

Delete

Edited June 15, 2008 by August1991

[August1991]

But these people didnt contribute.

So what? Zillions of Canadians never made a net contribution to government either yet we don't don't deny them all manner of government transfers.

Monty, do you really understand what "government" is? It takes from A and gives to B. This fiction of "contribution" (as in CPP/QPP contribution) is just that, a fiction. A CPP/QPP contribution is a tax under another name.

Edited June 15, 2008 by August1991

[Argus]

So what? Zillions of Canadians never made a net contribution to government either yet we don't don't deny them all manner of government transfers.

Monty, do you really understand what "government" is? It takes from A and gives to B. This fiction of "contribution" (as in CPP/QPP contribution) is just that, a fiction. A CPP/QPP contribution is a tax under another name.

It wasn't supposed to be that way. The CPP premiums from the boomers should have been invested so that it could pay them when they got old. However, the boomers never wanted to contribute enough to pay for their generous pensions (nor even pay for schools for their kids) and furthermore they didn't want high taxes. So the CPP contributions simply went into general tax revenues to try and keep the deficits a little lower. In addition, the boomers borrowed masses of money to pay for things they wanted to do - but didn't want to pay for.

Now the following generations are stuck paying for the rich pensions of the boomers and paying off the massive debt the boomers accumulated.

And who would support a scheme to pay yet more money to old people who came into this country even though they had nothing to contribute? Who made the immigration program so generous that we brought in far, far more uneducated, illiterate, unskilled people who became a burden on society? The boomers again, because it made them feel good and, well, it wasn't like they had to pay for it themselves. This spirit of generosity (with other people's money) the boomers gave to the nation continues because most of the government is still run by boomers, and because boomers are the most important voting block. They are retiring now, and no-doubt see this sort of thing as simple kindness and generosity - again, with other people's money.

Some guy wrote a book calling the generation before them The Greatest Generation. The boomers have been dubbed the Ungreatest generation, the most selfish generation, and I see nothing to contradict that.

[August1991]

The CPP premiums from the boomers should have been invested so that it could pay them when they got old.

Invested how? Where? It is the country as a whole we are talking about and I generally don't trust government bureaucrats to pick winners.

Argus, you have this bizarre/naive idea that if you pay a CPP contribution, someone else will generate wealth for you. In fact, your CPP contribution is just an income tax. When you are old, and pay less tax, you expect to still have roads and health care, no? Who will provide these public services for you?

I'm astonished how some otherwise savvy and intelligent people can be so ignorant about the nature of life.

And who would support a scheme to pay yet more money to old people who came into this country even though they had nothing to contribute?

Argus, the only way we can have benefits today is if someone pays today. We cannot "borrow from the future".

IOW, your biggest fear should be if someone in the future refuses to pay or rather, decides to make you pay instead (by changing the tax regime). When will a finance minister be able to introduce a budget clawing back all of the CPP, OAP and GAINS payouts for anyone earning below $30,000? When will the age exemption be abolished? How soon will see incentives to delay CPP payments to after 65?

I'd venture to guess that we'll see these changes by 2025 if not before.

----

As to "making the future pay" idea, you could simply die next year. In this way, you could avoid "being in the future to pay the tax bills". Of course, you also wouldn't be in the future to enjoy life either.

Edited June 15, 2008 by August1991

[DogOnPorch]

It's pretty simple, really. Money coming in should be equal or greater to the money going out. Anything else is frankly living off one's credit card. That governments seem to forget this at times is nothing new.

------------------------------------------

Advance to 'Go'...Collect $200.