Old age security reform

Topaz · February 1, 2012

Guess who is on the board of internal economy.......MP's! The coffee shop talk in my area is that Harper may not INCREASE any of the OAS,CPP or GIS for any of the boomers but can he stop any COLA from being added?

Smallc · February 1, 2012

and I would imagine, in the face of the Harper Conservatives clown show act on how they 'floated'/communicated this, they got nuthin else.

Since you're predictions are so often right, I'll be sure to write that down. Of course, the fact that they're looking at cutting all kinds of spending and expenses proves you wrong, as well as the fact that pension reform was only one thing that was mentioned in Harper's speech.

waldo · February 1, 2012

Since you're predictions are so often right, I'll be sure to write that down.

watch you don't get a hernia carrying all that water, hey?

punked · February 2, 2012

But OAS can't ben looked at in a vacuum. With the rising cost of OAS, comes rising costs for so many other things.

Things like Healthcare right? Wait the Cons have put a Cap on their health care transfers remember? Talking out of both sides of their mouth and lying out of each that is what is happening here.

Smallc · February 2, 2012

Things like Healthcare right? Wait the Cons have put a Cap on their health care transfers remember?

Yeah...at around 4% a year, rather than 6% a year. It isn't as if they've stopped funding it, and it isn't as if it still won't grow faster than the economy, and about in line with tax receipts.

Smallc · February 2, 2012

watch you don't get a hernia carrying all that water, hey?

Which is it? Is it that I'm unable to pick a side, or is it that I'm carrying water for the Conservatives.

scribblet · February 2, 2012

Since you're predictions are so often right, I'll be sure to write that down. Of course, the fact that they're looking at cutting all kinds of spending and expenses proves you wrong, as well as the fact that pension reform was only one thing that was mentioned in Harper's speech.

LOL

Funny that Harper's comment have Bob Rae et al to jump off the deep end and fear monger for all they are worth.

There is no hurry to act on pensions and contrary to the frothing there is nothing concrete and nothing but insinuations and fearmongering. What Mr. Harper might do is bring in rational reforms which may include revised clawbacks on OAS, lower limits for GIS and a staged increase in pension age over say, five years, he has the income splitting allready in place to add to the mix. Harper knows it is the millions of people who have no company or private pensions to supplement the CPP/OAS/GIS who need to be protected.

punked · February 2, 2012

Yeah...at around 4% a year, rather than 6% a year. It isn't as if they've stopped funding it, and it isn't as if it still won't grow faster than the economy, and about in line with tax receipts.

No the cap is at 3% a year, higher tied to regional performance and funds will be redistributed per capita with out any concern about how many elderly there are in the region. So here we have the Conservatives talking out of one side of their mouths saying we have a demographic problem then ignoring that problem when it comes to health care in the regions.

Smallc · February 2, 2012

No the cap is at 3% a year

No, it isn't. Even 3% a year is extremely generous. Per capita is a very good way to go generally, and provinces will have to deal with their own challenges.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Smallc

cybercoma · February 2, 2012

No, it isn't. Even 3% a year is extremely generous. Per capita is a very good way to go generally, and provinces will have to deal with their own challenges.

Generous? It's our money. It's not generosity.

Smallc · February 2, 2012

Generous? It's our money. It's not generosity.

Yeah, it is our money, but healthcare isn't a federal responsibility, and the only reason any funds are transferred is to maintain the CHA agreement. The fact that Ottawa is building in that generous an escalator is pretty good actually.

punked · February 2, 2012

No, it isn't. Even 3% a year is extremely generous. Per capita is a very good way to go generally, and provinces will have to deal with their own challenges.

Again out of one side his mouth Harper is saying there are going to be demographic challenges as the population gets older. On the other side he is saying "here young provinces (Alberta, Sask) you get more money for health care because of your young growing population. Screw you older provinces (NS, NB) you get less money to treat the problem I have acknowledged with OAS but don't actually care about or believe, deal with it I LOVE THE WEST WOOT WOOT". Seriously.

Moonlight Graham · February 2, 2012

Things like Healthcare right? Wait the Cons have put a Cap on their health care transfers remember? Talking out of both sides of their mouth and lying out of each that is what is happening here.

With the babyboomers, this country is screwed. To pay for their healthcare and other benefits, we'll need to raise taxes or go into more debt. The alternative is to cut healthcare services and senior benefits, or cut all government spending across the board. Either way, somebody is getting screwed. The gravy train is ending, the gov has to either cut services or take more money from pay cheques. I'm just glad I'm not an aging babyboomer right now!

Smallc · February 2, 2012

Again out of one side his mouth Harper is saying there are going to be demographic challenges as the population gets older. On the other side he is saying "here young provinces (Alberta, Sask) you get more money for health care

That isn't what's happening, but you can continue to think that. The reality is, changes need to be made to ensure the stability of federal finances.

cybercoma · February 2, 2012

That isn't what's happening, but you can continue to think that. The reality is, changes need to be made to ensure the stability of federal finances.

No. That's exactly what's happening. NB is screwed under his new health transfer policy.

Smallc · February 2, 2012

No. That's exactly what's happening. NB is screwed under his new health transfer policy.

If the federal government is able to cut expenses enough, they can reduce debt and lower taxes, transferring tax points to the provinces. Also, equalization will still play a big part in this. No province will be screwed, there will simply have to be hard choices at all levels. Again, healthcare is a provincial responsibility.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Smallc

cybercoma · February 2, 2012

So you're ok with vastly different standards of care across the country?

WWWTT · February 2, 2012

With the babyboomers, this country is screwed. To pay for their healthcare and other benefits, we'll need to raise taxes or go into more debt. The alternative is to cut healthcare services and senior benefits, or cut all government spending across the board. Either way, somebody is getting screwed. The gravy train is ending, the gov has to either cut services or take more money from pay cheques. I'm just glad I'm not an aging babyboomer right now!

I believe you are clearly displaying the picture that Harper and other conservatives are trying to project.

But our system has numerous revenue sources and numerous expenditures.

And these are always fluctuating.

Harper created decreases for the intake of revenue to make himself look good!Now he wants Canadian citizens to make a sacrifice so he doesn't have to look bad!

In other words he's asking Canadians to do with less so that him and his conservatives can stay in power while giving breaks to big corporations and other special interest groups.

This guy is a terrible leader!And the conservatives are playing games with the future well being of all Canadians!

WWWTT

Smallc · February 2, 2012

So you're ok with vastly different standards of care across the country?

Yes, because each province, as you've already pointed out, is in a unique situation. Through lower expenditures, the federal government should be able to shift tax points to the provinces so that they can perform their functions, while the federal government can focus on its obligations.

Moonlight Graham · February 2, 2012

I believe you are clearly displaying the picture that Harper and other conservatives are trying to project.

But our system has numerous revenue sources and numerous expenditures.

And these are always fluctuating.

Harper created decreases for the intake of revenue to make himself look good!Now he wants Canadian citizens to make a sacrifice so he doesn't have to look bad!

In other words he's asking Canadians to do with less so that him and his conservatives can stay in power while giving breaks to big corporations and other special interest groups.

I'm not parroting Harper, it's just basic math, and has been talked about for many years prior to Harper being PM. Whatever political games the CPC may play, it still comes down to taxes and spending. Taxes account for the overwhelming majority of our gov revenue, and this isn't going to change.

Your post keeps to my main point: someone is going to get screwed. Maybe it's seniors, maybe it's me, or my grandkids, or the rich or the poor.

punked · February 2, 2012

Yes, because each province, as you've already pointed out, is in a unique situation. Through lower expenditures, the federal government should be able to shift tax points to the provinces so that they can perform their functions, while the federal government can focus on its obligations.

You do know we have this thing called the Constitution which not only says there should be comparable health care, and Education across the country AND COMPARABLE taxation across the country. The Mechanism to do this is through Transfer payments and if you and Harper don't like it then you can need to open the Constitution not pretend it doesn't exist. Under your model NB gets less care or crazy taxes, both outside the rules the Feds and provinces set.

waldo · February 2, 2012

You do know we have this thing called the Constitution which not only says there should be comparable health care, and Education across the country AND COMPARABLE taxation across the country. The Mechanism to do this is through Transfer payments and if you and Harper don't like it then you can need to open the Constitution not pretend it doesn't exist. Under your model NB gets less care or crazy taxes, both outside the rules the Feds and provinces set.

yes, absolutely! This is most certainly one of the more ridiculous assertions MLW member 'Smallc' makes... to suggest the federal government has no place in regulating health care... that, as he states, it's a provincial responsibility and he's quite content to see different standards and different deployments of those standards from one province to the next.

mentalfloss · February 2, 2012

Can't find a link, but there is a comment I heard on CBC from the Parliamentary Budget Officer where he admits that changing the eligibility age for OAS will not bring any significant revenue to help pay for the supposed sustainability problem, but will simply hurt the lower income contributors.

Edited February 2, 2012 by mentalfloss

Smallc · February 2, 2012

OAS doesn't have contributors.

Smallc · February 2, 2012

You do know we have this thing called the Constitution which not only says there should be comparable health care, and Education across the country AND COMPARABLE taxation across the country.

No, actually, that isn't what it says, and the part you're talking about has nothing to do with the Canada Health Transfer. You're talking abut Equalization, and the purpose of that program is similar to what you state - similar services for similar taxation.

The Mechanism to do this is through Transfer payments and if you and Harper don't like it then you can need to open the Constitution not pretend it doesn't exist. Under your model NB gets less care or crazy taxes, both outside the rules the Feds and provinces set.

Again, you're not understanding. The federal government is not obligated to send transfers for health, just as the provinces aren't obligated to follow the CHA if they don't receive them. Do I want that? No. Does that mean that we can expect every province to have the same level of care? No. That doesn't happen now, and it won't ever happen.