Old age security reform

waldo · February 2, 2012

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.

or maybe all of the above! As Parliamentary Budget Officer Page said a few days ago:

"

the hints at more significant program spending restraint suggest the government is serious about eliminating its structural deficit. This does raise the question of whether all this austerity will go to deficit and debt reduction,

or is the government creating additional fiscal room for new programs or tax changes

? At this point, we lack the details on policy direction and the government's own analysis of its medium and long-term fiscal challenges

."

and yet... all the fully accepting lappers and water-carriers in this thread seem to accept, as quite a matter of fact, that this is all about deficit/debt reduction. Oh really, based on what?

waldo · February 2, 2012

bazinga!

mentalfloss · February 2, 2012

OAS doesn't have contributors.

Okay.. Lower income workers.

msj · February 2, 2012

bazinga!

This is why I think smallc is out to lunch.

Sorry smallc.

jacee · February 2, 2012

Okay.. Lower income workers.

I think you must have heard something about CPP which does have contributors.

fellowtraveller · February 2, 2012

Okay.. Lower income workers.

Lower income workers, or lower income non workers do not contribute to OAS because they do not ultimately pay much or any income tax, which is the source of funds for the OAS.

fellowtraveller · 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.

The Constitution says little about comparable taxation for provinces. Each province can levy certain taxes at whatever level they choose, hence all the different rates for sales taxes, income tax levies and a host of other taxes and user fees.

The feds already levy the same income taxes nationally and the same GST.

fellowtraveller · February 2, 2012

or maybe all of the above! As Parliamentary Budget Officer Page said a few days ago:

"
hints ......suggest .....raise the question ...?..... we lack the details ......]."

and yet... all the fully accepting lappers and water-carriers in this thread seem to accept, as quite a matter of fact, that this is all about deficit/debt reduction. Oh really, based on what?

There, fixed it for you.

Smallc · February 2, 2012

The Constitution says little about comparable taxation for provinces. Each province can levy certain taxes at whatever level they choose, hence all the different rates for sales taxes, income tax levies and a host of other taxes and user fees.

The feds already levy the same income taxes nationally and the same GST.

He's right when it comes to equalization - comparable service for comparable tax. Really though, unlike with pensions, it isn't generally age driving cost, but technology.

Topaz · February 2, 2012

I'm watching the debate in Parliament and the Min. Findley came out and said that the revenues are down and something has to be done about. First, I'm surprised they actually come out and say that, and second, what did they expect when they cut GST and Corp.taxes? Corp taxes were around 30 Bil out of revenue and it must be a couple billion for the GST. So they want to go after the future seniors because of THEIR mistakes? The Tories also increased their own pay checks when they first came to power. ANY government that does this needs to be tossed out of power now! The Libs. left 13 Bil. extra, and it 6 short years, look at how the country has change for the worse and any party that taxes the lowest incomers, shouldn't be governing.

PIK · February 2, 2012

Talk about fear mongering by the left. all the stuff I have read , I have never heard harper say any thing about it. They say he is going to cut it off completely, he is going to throw the elderly onto the streets. But I hate to tell you ,most canadians are not buying it, and this will help in the next harper majority goverment. My whole life I have been told it is in trouble and you will never collect it, but now when harper says he is going to tweak it, it all of a sudden is fine for decades to come.

fellowtraveller · February 2, 2012

Really though, unlike with pensions, it isn't generally age driving cost, but technology.

Age is most defitniely an issue for health care, as in we are living longer and demanding more. Technology is a factor too, but the prime suck of health care(and pensions) in the next few decades is that we are living longer than was anticipated when these systems were devised.

That reality was one of the reason that nearly everybody is moving away from defined benefit pensions. Soon enough, only govts will have them, because there is the illusion that no matter what the cost, taxpayers will support an insolvent plan.

PIK · February 2, 2012

Canadian lefty media.

Print stories about things the Harper never said

Then print stories about harper backing away from things he never said.

Then you get Bob Rae running around like his hair is on fire screaming about things Harper never said.

How desperate the libs have become.

waldo · February 2, 2012

or maybe all of the above! As Parliamentary Budget Officer Page said a few days ago:
"hints ......suggest .....raise the question ...?..... we lack the details ......]."

and yet... all the fully accepting lappers and water-carriers in this thread seem to accept, as quite a matter of fact, that this is all about deficit/debt reduction. Oh really, based on what?

There, fixed it for you.

well, let's look at what you chose to isolate from within PBO Kevin Page's statement:

- "

hints, suggest

" => these words actually add presence and credence to the Harper Conservative government being serious about eliminating its structural deficit. It's quite bizarre that you would cast your fervour against these rather positive lending words.

- "

raise the question

" => these words simply reflect upon known, 'matter of fact',

uncertainty

on how/where any monies reaped from so-called Harper Conservative fiscal austerity measures might be applied. It's quite telling that you would cast your fervour against these matter of fact words.

- "

we lack the details

" => these words simply are a matter of fact within PBO's Kevin Page's summary account that he/his office/we Canadians,

have no details

on Harper Conservative policy direction... or on Harper Conservative analysis of its medium and long-term fiscal challenges. It's quite telling that you would cast your fervour against these matter of fact words.

so... in your isolation of PBO Kevin Page's statement, that leaves us with "?", the question which, of course, simply reflects upon the stated, matter of fact, uncertainty and lack of details; i.e., "will all this austerity go to deficit and debt reduction, or is the government creating additional fiscal room for new programs or tax changes?"

in your rushed fervour to, as you say, "fix it for me", you have clearly acted to highlight, to showcase, to reinforce your ultra-partisan, ultra-zealous, most accepting and most accommodating self. Thank you, thank you very much! Let's keep the appropriate and intact PBO Kevin Page statement reference, with your isolation highlights, hey?

As Parliamentary Budget Officer Page said a few days ago:

"the
hints
at more significant program spending restraint
suggest
the government is serious about eliminating its structural deficit. This does
raise the question
of whether all this austerity will go to deficit and debt reduction, or is the government creating additional fiscal room for new programs or tax changes
?
At this point,
we lack the details
on policy direction and the government's own analysis of its medium and long-term fiscal challenges."

and yet... all the fully accepting lappers and water-carriers in this thread seem to accept, as quite a matter of fact, that this is all about deficit/debt reduction. Oh really, based on what?

waldo · February 2, 2012

Canadian lefty media.
Print stories about things the Harper never said

*squawk* lefty media, *squawk* lefty media

what, "Harper never said things", have been printed?

Topaz · February 2, 2012

Talk about fear mongering by the left. all the stuff I have read , I have never heard harper say any thing about it. They say he is going to cut it off completely, he is going to throw the elderly onto the streets. But I hate to tell you ,most canadians are not buying it, and this will help in the next harper majority goverment. My whole life I have been told it is in trouble and you will never collect it, but now when harper says he is going to tweak it, it all of a sudden is fine for decades to come.

Are you saying you don't mind not getting it til 67 or if your income is too high and you won't get it at all? IF the government is so much in the red than the age wouldn't do much so, they should go with income and that would cut more off and increase their revenues. He's already hit the age factor on CPP and with GIS, if you don't get OAS at 65 then you can't get GIS either. Seems to me Harper keeps going to poor for revenues instead of the corporation and the people with money who it wouldn't hurt as much.

waldo · February 2, 2012

bazinga!

This is why I think smallc is out to lunch.

Sorry smallc.

yes, nothing quite zeros in on the fake crisis generated by Harper than having a convenient toon play over his, from afar Davos "gravitas"!

CPCFTW · February 2, 2012

Are you saying you don't mind not getting it til 67 or if your income is too high and you won't get it at all? IF the government is so much in the red than the age wouldn't do much so, they should go with income and that would cut more off and increase their revenues. He's already hit the age factor on CPP and with GIS, if you don't get OAS at 65 then you can't get GIS either. Seems to me Harper keeps going to poor for revenues instead of the corporation and the people with money who it wouldn't hurt as much.

:blink:

MiddleClassCentrist · February 2, 2012

I applaud the Harper Government on this one. (Conservative Ideologues, please take note)

Liberals and NDP are on the wrong side of this.

The 50+ can't keep milking the younger generation. The younger generations already have a bleaker outlook with worse pensions, later retirement age and lower working wage...

waldo · February 2, 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.

Topaz · February 2, 2012

I applaud the Harper Government on this one. (Conservative Ideologues, please take note)

Liberals and NDP are on the wrong side of this.

The 50+ can't keep milking the younger generation. The younger generations already have a bleaker outlook with worse pensions, later retirement age and lower working wage...

What age do you think the cut off age is for not being affected by the 67 age? I think its going to be 60 or 62-3 and they may also not increase any of the CPP, OAS and GIS with COLA. They keep saying those are getting it now or nearing, to me that 60 or 62-63. I agree with you on the younger generation but the problem is there's too many experts having different views.

PIK · February 2, 2012

What age do you think the cut off age is for not being affected by the 67 age? I think its going to be 60 or 62-3 and they may also not increase any of the CPP, OAS and GIS with COLA. They keep saying those are getting it now or nearing, to me that 60 or 62-63. I agree with you on the younger generation but the problem is there's too many experts having different views.

I am going to say 45-50. But I deal with alot of elderly and because of the media,some think that it is going to be cut off, alot of fearmongering going on in the media and it is freaking out alot of people. The left have gone over board on this trying to score political points, one thing is for sure anyone with a brain will see it and how big of a scum bag bob rae is.

Smallc · February 2, 2012

the CPP

The CPPIB controls the CPP based on actuarially sound principles.

scribblet · February 2, 2012

Canadian lefty media.

Print stories about things the Harper never said

Then print stories about harper backing away from things he never said.

Then you get Bob Rae running around like his hair is on fire screaming about things Harper never said.

How desperate the libs have become.

Have to say, there was no mention of the OAS in the Davos speech, all this really is hyperventilating over what they think might happen. Of course, Rae et al aren't going to let a little thing like that stop them from fuming and fulmigating in order to score political points.

waldo · February 2, 2012

because of the media

yes, that's right... the "lefty media" as you repeatedly highlight! Of course, to you, uncertainty has nothing at all to do with how Harper initially floated the intent separate from actually dialoging with Parliament/Canadians... or how we've been subjected to a rash of scrambling mixed messages from government representatives... or how we've received no details from Harper Conservatives... or how we've received no substantiation on the OAS being, supposedly, "unsustainable"... or how we've received expert counter commentary/review advising the OAS is not in a projected "unsustainable" condition... etc.

to you... it's all about the "lefty media"