Delay retirement age to 70?

[Pat Coghlan]

What to do about the fact that, at current rates of birth and immigration, 45% of Canada's population will be over 65 in less than 40 years?

http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/...html?id=1753221

Hint: Immigration isn't going to solve this problem.

[Bonam]

It seems obvious that as life expectancy increases retirement age will have to follow.

[punked]

Seems obvious more immigration.

[Bonam]

Naw our immigration is already more than sufficient. People are coming over much faster than they are being integrated into society.

[CAMP]

What to do about the fact that, at current rates of birth and immigration, 45% of Canada's population will be over 65 in less than 40 years?

http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/...html?id=1753221

Hint: Immigration isn't going to solve this problem.

Well Pat there's only one other way to increase the population so get to it eh!

[Smallc]

Naw our immigration is already more than sufficient. People are coming over much faster than they are being integrated into society.

I am in Toronto. I was here for Canada Day. There were people from all over the world out celebrating this country that they now live in and love...more than many that were born here I would say. Immigrants aren't a problem.

[punked]

The problem is we have a problem. We have a solution and peoples own prejudices make it so we can not solve that problem.

[Smallc]

Agreed

[Renegade]

What to do about the fact that, at current rates of birth and immigration, 45% of Canada's population will be over 65 in less than 40 years?

A larger % of the population being over 65 is only a problem if we expect the younger segment to support those over 65. Once we stop or reduce that dependancy, it stops being a problem.

If anything a larger aged population means more service jobs for the workforce caring for the aged.

[Bonam]

I am in Toronto. I was here for Canada Day. There were people from all over the world out celebrating this country that they now live in and love...more than many that were born here I would say. Immigrants aren't a problem.

Where did I say they were a problem? I said that there is a limit to how many new arrivals Canada can accommodate and integrate per unit time.

A larger % of the population being over 65 is only a problem if we expect the younger segment to support those over 65. Once we stop or reduce that dependancy, it stops being a problem.

Lifespans are increasing, people are maintaing their vigor later into life, and medical technology continues to advance. Life expectancy has increased by decades and yet retirement age has remained the same.

http://www.elderweb.com/images/pages/stats.gif

In the future, life expectancy will continue to increase. 90 years, 100 years, 150. Medical experts, technologists, and futurists predict that lifespans will continue to increase, and furthermore that the rate of increase of lifespans will continue to accelerate. Will people still retire at the age of 65 when they expect to live to be 150? The answer is obviously no.

[gordiecanuk]

A larger % of the population being over 65 is only a problem if we expect the younger segment to support those over 65. Once we stop or reduce that dependancy, it stops being a problem.

If anything a larger aged population means more service jobs for the workforce caring for the aged.

With the way the economy is going seniors are going to have little choice but to continue working...as many already do. Flaherty's 50 Billion deficit (current stab in the dark by Mr. MaGoo) is going to mean increased taxes and decreasing levels of government service in the years ahead. Add to that rising energy costs and decreasing home values and you're gonna see lots of 70 year olds asking "do you want fries with that"?

[Bonam]

With the way the economy is going seniors are going to have little choice but to continue working...as many already do. Flaherty's 50 Billion deficit (current stab in the dark by Mr. MaGoo) is going to mean increased taxes and decreasing levels of government service in the years ahead. Add to that rising energy costs and decreasing home values and you're gonna see lots of 70 year olds asking "do you want fries with that"?

You guys all have such depressing views of the future. Energy will be clean and plentiful as we develop new technologies, home values will continue to increase as populations and population densities inevitably grow, and people will work longer because they are living longer and healthier lives.

[gordiecanuk]

You guys all have such depressing views of the future. Energy will be clean and plentiful as we develop new technologies, home values will continue to increase as populations and population densities inevitably grow, and people will work longer because they are living longer and healthier lives.

Clean and plentiful energy? But not cheap...Home values will continue to increase over the longer haul, but we're going to see them sliding over the next 2-5 years. Those who can afford it will be living longer and (perhaps) healthier.

[segnosaur]

What to do about the fact that, at current rates of birth and immigration, 45% of Canada's population will be over 65 in less than 40 years?

Two words.... Soylent Green.

[Pat Coghlan]

Well Pat there's only one other way to increase the population so get to it eh!

I did my part (5 kids), but if more kids is the objective, Canada's tax policy needs to change so that more families can have a spouse at home.

Unless that happens, nothing will change.

[jbg]

What to do about the fact that, at current rates of birth and immigration, 45% of Canada's population will be over 65 in less than 40 years?

http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/...html?id=1753221

Hint: Immigration isn't going to solve this problem.

Older people should want retirement age to increase.

Think about it. When you're 65 you've been working roughly 42-45 years. If you're life expectancy is 72, as it was back in the day, finding stuff to do while you're increasingly unfit for seven years isn't that hard. When you can reasonably expect to make another 25-30 years, retirement becomes booorrrrinnng even if you have the money.

And not many people will have enough money squirreled away at 65 to live 30 years without working. The retiremen age must be raised further, to some age approaching 80.

[msj]

Older people should want retirement age to increase.

And not many people will have enough money squirreled away at 65 to live 30 years without working. The retiremen age must be raised further, to some age approaching 80.

If you are talking about mandatory retirement then there is no issue here.

Canada does not have mandatory retirement based on age (with some exceptions).

People can work as long as they are capable/competent.

Not only that, but they can choose to pay into CPP until age 70 as to increase their CPP benefit for when they choose to retire.

[Topaz]

First of all, if companies don't want older workers, they will find a way to get rid of them. Secondly, there are people who may have had only one cheque coming in, and so it will take longer to pay off mortgage, kids education bills, etc. so it should be, at least 70.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

First of all, if companies don't want older workers, they will find a way to get rid of them. Secondly, there are people who may have had only one cheque coming in, and so it will take longer to pay off mortgage, kids education bills, etc. so it should be, at least 70.

Are you folks goofy?

Raising the old age to 70 means that the entire workforce who were spending their lives paying taxes while find themselves with a change that would FORCE them to stay working?!!! Now if thatg only applied to Old Age Pensions and not Canada Pension Plan then perhaps it would be accepted. Just maybe, no garauntees.

[normanchateau]

With the way the economy is going seniors are going to have little choice but to continue working...as many already do.

Unfortunately with employment now at its highest level in decades, this means that seniors are taking away jobs from the young and this is building resentment among the young:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/business/21age.html

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Unfortunately with employment now at its highest level in decades, this means that seniors are taking away jobs from the young and this is building resentment among the young:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/business/21age.html

Taking jobs away from the young? What, the job they had for the last 35 years? Give me a break, you want to raise the retirement age and deny people who have paid taxes for three or four decades a pension and at the same time think they are taking jobs from young folks?

[normanchateau]

Give me a break, you want to raise the retirement age and deny people who have paid taxes for three or four decades a pension

Where did I say that I either want to raise the retirement age or deny people who've paid taxes for three or four decades a pension?

[msj]

There is a difference between eliminating the mandatory retirement age (which is an issue that involves freedom, ageism, etc) and increasing the age where one may be eligible for OAS, GIS and/or CPP.

CPP is a separate fund that is financially sound. As such, it should not be necessary to further tweak it other than the tweaks that are coming down the pipe right now (in another thread).

OAS/GIS however, are threatened since they rely on the taxes of all Canadians each year (and those yearly taxes must be sufficient to pay for OAS, GIS, healthcare, other transfers, defence, etc).

Perhaps the OAS/GIS threshold should be raised from 65 to 70. At the very least it should be looked into by actuaries and the like.

The reality is, with pension splitting for seniors (so that very few seniors now face OAS clawback) and TFSA's for everyone, it is only a matter of a couple of decades before these policies erode Canada's tax base forcing spending cuts and/or tax increases to make up for it.

This is what Canada deserves when we continue to vote in inept minority governments (no matter what stripe) who are looking at the small present day picture rather than considering the big picture down the road.

[CAMP]

There is a difference between eliminating the mandatory retirement age (which is an issue that involves freedom, ageism, etc) and increasing the age where one may be eligible for OAS, GIS and/or CPP.

CPP is a separate fund that is financially sound. As such, it should not be necessary to further tweak it other than the tweaks that are coming down the pipe right now (in another thread).

OAS/GIS however, are threatened since they rely on the taxes of all Canadians each year (and those yearly taxes must be sufficient to pay for OAS, GIS, healthcare, other transfers, defence, etc).

Perhaps the OAS/GIS threshold should be raised from 65 to 70. At the very least it should be looked into by actuaries and the like.

The reality is, with pension splitting for seniors (so that very few seniors now face OAS clawback) and TFSA's for everyone, it is only a matter of a couple of decades before these policies erode Canada's tax base forcing spending cuts and/or tax increases to make up for it.

This is what Canada deserves when we continue to vote in inept minority governments (no matter what stripe) who are looking at the small present day picture rather than considering the big picture down the road.

Better get use to those inept minortiy governments that are nothing but partisan. MP's need to be responsible to their constituents instead of party whips.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Better get use to those inept minortiy governments that are nothing but partisan. MP's need to be responsible to their constituents instead of party whips.

Raise the retirement age or qualification for an existing program and you will see whips alright. Figure on chains and maybe the odd pitchfork too. I for one would not stand for it willingly myself.