Old age security reform

punked · February 3, 2012

You mean on how they kept taking out debt to live their way of life to be paid back by us youngsters?

Face it. Our system was set up like a pyramid scheme. It works dandily as long as there are constantly more people at the bottom than the top.

That is true of every country and society, it works best when there is a lot of working age people and not as good when there isn't. How do you think you change that?

Smallc · February 3, 2012

You adjust it, as will be done shortly, it seems.

MiddleClassCentrist · February 3, 2012

That is true of every country and society, it works best when there is a lot of working age people and not as good when there isn't. How do you think you change that?

See Post by Small C above

cybercoma · February 3, 2012

You adjust it, as will be done shortly, it seems.

How much are we short? How is raising the age 2 years going to fix that? Nobody has provided any numbers yet and there's already economists saying the Conservatives' plan is useless. More to the point, this government has seen a drop in revenues because they've cut the GST and corporate taxes. So, if there's a shortage, it's because of their short-sighted management.

Smallc · February 3, 2012

Cutting the GST was pretty gimmicky, but cutting corporate taxes is an investment, or at least most economists think so. As for a drop in revenue, other than recession caused issues, that hasn't actually occurred, and corporate tax revenues are increasing as the rates are dropped. The idea is to make Canada an attractive place to invest. Reasonable tax rates and balanced budgets make that happen.

punked · February 3, 2012

You adjust it, as will be done shortly, it seems.

Doesn't change the problem.

Evening Star · February 3, 2012

Cutting the GST was pretty gimmicky, but cutting corporate taxes is an investment, or at least most economists think so. As for a drop in revenue, other than recession caused issues, that hasn't actually occurred, and corporate tax revenues are increasing as the rates are dropped. The idea is to make Canada an attractive place to invest. Reasonable tax rates and balanced budgets make that happen.

What about TFSAs and income splitting?

Smallc · February 3, 2012

What about TFSAs and income splitting?

I have a TFSA, but I find them rather meaningless. Income splitting was unnecessary, and the tax credits, GST cut, and income splitting should have instead went to lowering the rates across the tax brackets.

waldo · February 3, 2012

How much are we short? How is raising the age 2 years going to fix that?

anyone?... anyone?... Bueller?...Harper?

waldo · February 3, 2012

The 50+ can't keep milking the younger generation.
milking? Based on... what? Let's read how you're, apparently, completely discounting the societal affect/input of those 50+ generations you're targeting... and how you're casting the effects(?) to the young-ins, on your target 50+ generations.
Face it. Our system was set up like a pyramid scheme. It works dandily as long as there are constantly more people at the bottom than the top.

uhhhh... about that much ballyhooed, job-deprived younger generation - just how might keeping potential retirees in the work force an additional 2 years help out said job-deprived young-ins?

WWWTT · February 3, 2012

The average age of immigrants is about the same as the average age of Canadian born people. We get very few young people coming over here. We get middle aged professionals who then sponsor their parents.

The first part of your comment sort of makes sence to me?

But the second and third sentence I believe is incorrect from my experience.(family,relatives,numerous collueges and friends)

Can you provide a reliable link to support your claim?

My interpretation of middle age is mid 40 to 50's.

My parents were still young when they came to Canada from Portugal,father was around 34-35,mother was 28.

Moving to another country is not an easy thing to do and younger people are more inclined/insentive to do so.

Have you yourself ever thought of moving to another country or even another province/region/city?Not so easy is it!

I'm sorry but I disagree with you,and Canada is not faced with an upcoming crisis of imbalance in age distribution induced misaligned/imbalance dispercement of wealth!Or so implied by the conservatives!

Unless of course you are against immigration and overall population growth.

WWWTT

Scotty · February 4, 2012

Unless of course you are against immigration and overall population growth.

Bingo on both counts.

And my belief that the average age of immigrants is not far removed from the average age of Canadian born citizens is because that's what Statistics Canada says.

Scotty · February 4, 2012

Doesn't even make sense if you come here you bring your kids first. Kids are usually less then 15.

You're misunderstanding me. I did not mean that the average age of immigrants who arrive here is not far removed from that of the median average of the Canadian born population. What I meant to say was that the median age of immigrants in Canada, inc. all immigrants, regardless of when they arrived, is only a few years younger than the average age of Canadian born in Canada.

WWWTT · February 4, 2012

Bingo on both counts.

You are against population growth???

Man thats freekin twisted!

Are you aware that Canada as we now it now will become extinct and taken over without population growth.

WWWTT

MiddleClassCentrist · February 5, 2012

Cutting the GST was pretty gimmicky, but cutting corporate taxes is an investment, or at least most economists think so. As for a drop in revenue, other than recession caused issues, that hasn't actually occurred, and corporate tax revenues are increasing as the rates are dropped. The idea is to make Canada an attractive place to invest. Reasonable tax rates and balanced budgets make that happen.

Canada already has among the lowest corporate taxes in the developed world. I don't see them flocking here.

punked · February 5, 2012

Canada already has among the lowest corporate taxes in the developed world. I don't see them flocking here.

That is because as we have seen over the past 60 years of tax cuts in the US and across the world, they are a poor investment given how much more you can do with that tax money. They are one of the worst investments for a government after a certain point. Sometimes there is to much of a good thing.

Smallc · February 6, 2012

Canada already has among the lowest corporate taxes in the developed world. I don't see them flocking here.

Canada has been doing rather well in this regard, actually.

Topaz · February 6, 2012

Just an update... Rae asked Minister Findley at what age were they considering, and she said someone HER age and younger. Her age, she's 55 Oct.3 2012. So if this is true anyone 55 or younger will be waiting 12 more years for OAS and GIS and if you take CPP early, you lose 36% of your CPP.

waldo · February 8, 2012

further to all those expert testimonies coming forward challenging the Harper Conservatives labeling of the OAS as "unsustainable"... do we really need to worry about the sustainability of OAS? Not according to the Chief Actuary of the OAS system!

Based on the assumption that the cost of living would rise 2.5 per cent a year and that earnings would rise at 3.8 per cent a year (i.e., real wage growth of 1.3 per cent per annum), the Chief Actuary projected that the cost of OAS as a percentage of GDP would be 2.2 per cent in 2007; it would then peak at 3.1 per cent in 2030, then fall (as baby boomers die off) to 2.7 per cent in 2050. He further points out that, if these assumptions prove to be true, each generation of retirees will receive an OAS benefit that will be a smaller ratio of their final pay (the replacement ratio) than the generations before.
Does this indicate that the OAS system is unsustainable? Are we facing a demographic avalanche or a glacier?

Raising the eligibility age for OAS is regressive legislation. It’s well known that wealthy Canadians live longer than poorer Canadians. Look at a blue-collar worker with less than a high-school education who retires at 65. That person’s life expectancy could easily be around 10 years. If you raise the age of eligibility for OAS to 67 from 65, you remove 20 per cent of that person’s expected benefits. A wealthy Canadian, on the other hand, could just as easily be looking at a life expectancy of 20 years. Thus, moving this person’s age of eligibility up by two years is a 10-per-cent reduction in their benefits.

mentalfloss · February 8, 2012

That settles it.

The opposition better be hammering the Conservatives on this point.

Jerry J. Fortin · February 8, 2012

That settles it.

The opposition better be hammering the Conservatives on this point.

I am not sure they either will or can effect the government.

Cameron · February 8, 2012

I think we should all wait until numbers from the government come out. In the next budget there will be nothing in regards to OAS changes. We are all shooting in the dark right now and the opposition will use this as fodder to rally people up and try and swing their votes (as any opposition would).

Don't be hasty.

waldo · February 8, 2012

I think we should all wait until numbers from the government come out. In the next budget there will be nothing in regards to OAS changes. We are all shooting in the dark right now and the opposition will use this as fodder to rally people up and try and swing their votes (as any opposition would).

Don't be hasty.

just where do you think the "haste"... stems? Not from the Harper musings from a far off Davos land? Not from the clown show follow-up from the PMO and cabinet members? Not from the numerous Harper/PMO/ministers/media references to the so-called unsustainable nature of OAS? Not from the oft repeated Harper/PMO/ministers/media references to a possible/probable/eventual change in OAS eligibility? If not any of the aforementioned, then where... does the "haste" stem from?

mentalfloss · February 8, 2012

I am not sure they either will or can effect the government.

Well, watching this now on question period it's clear that the CPC is simply reverting to the usual set of diversionary tactics like blaming Liberals for other policies, taking out of context quotes and blaming the opposition for not supporting their earlier mandates like income splitting and even accusing the opposition of fear mongering (wow).

The worst part about it is that they won't commit to answering on their own policy of whether or not the retirement age for OAS will be raised 67.

They probably asked the question at least 20 times in QP without a straight answer, lol

Edit.. now all opposition members are echoing "YES OR NO" after each question, rofl

Diane Finley better be getting paid OT because she's been taking most of the questions on OAS so far.

Edited February 8, 2012 by mentalfloss

Topaz · February 8, 2012

I was watching QP today too. I bet the CPC members are sorry Harper brought up the OAS over in Europe. Page has come today and said there is no problem with OAS in the future and until the Tories can really come up with REAL evidence to prove their claim, Canadian aren't going to believe them. Also, would anyone here agree, that there were more people from the last generation than boomers. Families were having bigger families like 12-20 kids, boomers aren't. Is the government letting in more people into the country for the future? The government has said that the OAS comes out of General Revenues, well so does their pension money and now the Tories have increased the size of the Commons, could that be the reason behind cutting OAS and the reason for taking an early CPP? Or could be that Harper doesn't believe in social programs.