Old age security reform

waldo · February 2, 2012

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.

care to stop your own hyperventilating, fuming and fulmigating(sic) and transcribe the following Harper statement within that, "from afar" Davos, speech:

Stephen Harper in a speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, said:

Fortunately, the centrepiece of that system, the Canada Pension Plan, is fully funded, actuarially sound and does not need to be changed.
For those elements of the system that are not funded
, we will make the changes necessary to ensure sustainability for the next generation while not affecting current recipients.

eyeball · 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...

Can't we count on innovation delivering the younger generation to the promised land?

Apparently the technological singularity is just around the corner so lets all just relax and party like it's 1999.

msj · February 2, 2012

The CPPIB controls the CPP based on actuarially sound principles.

The CPPIB controls a significant amount of the funds that the CPP receives and are expected to invest to earn a return to keep the CPP actuarially sound.

This does not mean, however, that the CPC has not made changes to the CPP:

Employers in all provinces except Québec are responsible for deducting CPP contributions from employees who are 18 to 69 years old, unless the employee is collecting a CPP retirement (until Dec 31, 2011) or disability pension....
In 2012, CPP contributions will still be payable on employment or self-employment income, even if a CPP retirement pension is being received. Once the recipient of the pension is 65, they can elect to stop making further contributions to the CPP, by completing form CPT30 from CRA. Once the form is completed, a copy must be given to the employer, and the original sent to CRA. This election can be revoked by completing form CPT30, but not until the following calendar year.

I have a number of clients for which we have filed the CPT30 form.

As one of them told me - it's like the cable companies and negative option billing years ago.

Basically, prior to 2011, if you were taking CPP early, say at age 62, and you continued to work you would not have to pay into it anymore.

Great - you and your employer save some money, you get your CPP to make ends meet.

From 2012 on these early takers now have to pay CPP premiums (and their employers do too) until the person reaches 65 and fills out the CPT30 form.

That is called a money grab. Or at least that is what us tax accountants tell our frustrated clients.

Oh, and that link didn't include the changes to taking the CPP early which can be found here:

Before 2012, the late pension is increased by 0.5% per month for each month after the 65th birthday that the person waits to begin the pension, up to age 70. The pension is increased by 30% (5 years x 12 months x 0.5%) for a person who waits until age 70 to start collecting it.
Starting in 2012 the percentage amounts used to reduce the early taken pensions will be gradually increased. The new factors are:

Year Monthly

Reduction

2012 0.52%

2013 0.54%

2014 0.56%

2015 0.58%

2016 0.60%

This would result in the pension being reduced by 36% (60 months x 0.60%) for a person who begins collecting it at age 60 after 2015.

I believe this is what Topaz is referencing when she is talking about CPP changes.

I admit that I thought Paul Martin's changes is the 1990's had left it actuarially sound.

Harper and the CPC appear to disagree and have brought in these changes to, presumably, make it actuarially sound.

I have not seen any evidence one way or the other.

Edited February 2, 2012 by msj

waldo · February 2, 2012

Harper and the CPC appear to disagree and have brought in these changes to, presumably, make it actuarially sound.

and those early retirement percentage reduction levels are scandalous... simply money grabbing. Not every one chooses to take CPP pre-65; many do so as a result of infirmity, illness... and poverty.

Scotty · February 2, 2012

Milligan pointed to Italy, which spends 14 per cent of its economy on public pensions.

"We're going from 2.4 to 3.1 per cent. Italy has that for breakfast," he said.

"Is Old Age Security going to bankrupt us? No. Health care and long-term care are the big ones."

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Milligan find that the OAS itself would go to 3.1%? OAS is only a part of our pensions. What percentage is CPP? GIS? We're supposed to ignore those?

Scotty · 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.

So explain how that works. Province A and B both have the same income, but A chooses to add in, say, an expensive child care program, and a bunch of other programs, and runs everything extremely inefficiently compared to province B. Thus they can't afford to pay as much into health care. That means the government has to give them more money than province B to make up for their own inefficiency and overly generous programs?

msj · February 2, 2012

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Milligan find that the OAS itself would go to 3.1%? OAS is only a part of our pensions. What percentage is CPP? GIS? We're supposed to ignore those?

I'm not sure if Milligan is only talking about OAS or if he is talking about OAS and GIS.

The two tend to be linked together based on historical roots (they were meant to reduce poverty amongst seniors).

CPP is a system that is paid into (and, therefore, is paid out based upon paying in).

Paul Martin's and Harper's reforms presumably make CPP sustainable under the most recent (2012) rules.

Scotty · February 2, 2012

and those early retirement percentage reduction levels are scandalous... simply money grabbing. Not every one chooses to take CPP pre-65; many do so as a result of infirmity, illness... and poverty.

Nobody I know. Most of the people I know take it because they can. It appears the government has decided it would be a good idea to discourage early retirement, perhaps given the demographic trend which shows that in 20 years or so there'll only be 2 workers for every 1 retired person.

Instead of imputing immorality to that why not simply accept that they are doing what they think is best for the country's well-being, whether correct or not?

Scotty · February 2, 2012

I'm not sure if Milligan is only talking about OAS or if he is talking about OAS and GIS.

The two tend to be linked together based on historical roots (they were meant to reduce poverty amongst seniors).

CPP is a system that is paid into (and, therefore, is paid out based upon paying in).

Paul Martin's and Harper's reforms presumably make CPP sustainable under the most recent (2012) rules.

Regardless of whether it's sustainable, and regardless of whether we call the deductions something other than taxes, it's still something the working people and corporations have to fund, something we as a people have to pay. And if OAS is 3% I bet you can triple or quadruple that by adding in CPP. Which makes us not so far behind Italy as all that...

msj · February 2, 2012

Nobody I know. Most of the people I know take it because they can. It appears the government has decided it would be a good idea to discourage early retirement, perhaps given the demographic trend which shows that in 20 years or so there'll only be 2 workers for every 1 retired person.

Instead of imputing immorality to that why not simply accept that they are doing what they think is best for the country's well-being, whether correct or not?

The reason is simple - it was commonly believed that the reforms from the 1990's (which doubled premiums and made changes to early CPP) made CPP sustainable.

Then we get these changes based on who knows what.

A case was made in the 1990's about CPP not being sustainable.

That case was not made in 2009 when the most recent bill was passed.

msj · February 2, 2012

Regardless of whether it's sustainable, and regardless of whether we call the deductions something other than taxes, it's still something the working people and corporations have to fund, something we as a people have to pay. And if OAS is 3% I bet you can triple or quadruple that by adding in CPP. Which makes us not so far behind Italy as all that...

I did not post anything to do with Italy so I do not know what is included in that number or not so you can take that issue up with the person who did post it.

fellowtraveller · February 2, 2012

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?

why are you speculating on the speculations of Kevin Page, and pretending that any of it came from Harper? You can keep what you wish, why not start a file too?

You have no idea what legislation is coming and neither does Page with his paragreaphs filled with nothing but the same old drivel, yet you are hogwild and foursquare that something horrible cometh. You'd better unknot your knickers soon before the loss of blood causes further damage.

WWWTT · 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...

But its perfectly fine for corporations to continue raping Canadians,young and old for as long as the conservatives or liberals are in power!

WWWTT

jacee · February 2, 2012

Canadians don't want seniors to wait for benefits

OTTAWA — Three-quarters of Canadians oppose raising the age of eligibility — from 65 to 67 — for the Old Age Security (OAS) benefit a new poll has found.

The national survey by Ipsos Reid, conducted this week for Postmedia News and Global TV suggests Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government could have a tough public- relations battle on its hands as it moves forward with plans to reform the country's public pension plan.

Topaz · February 2, 2012

How can the government say there will be more people retired than working people? The government allows people in Canada and I think it is around 250,000 yearly and I'm sure they are not seniors, they are working age people. The people who would take CPP at age 60 are the people who have lost their jobs and can't get hired on to others because of age and women, who only had part time jobs and their hubby have died, probably without life insurance. Again, I say if its all about money, then it has to be more about income than age.

waldo · February 2, 2012

why are you speculating on the speculations of Kevin Page, and pretending that any of it came from Harper? You can keep what you wish, why not start a file too?

no speculation involved on any level. PBO Page simply states facts and asks a question based upon those facts. Your attempt to isolate Page's words was a fail - big time!

You have no idea what legislation is coming and neither does Page with his paragreaphs filled with nothing but the same old drivel, yet you are hogwild and foursquare that something horrible cometh. You'd better unknot your knickers soon before the loss of blood causes further damage.

PBO Page's drivel? Asking a factual based question is... drivel? The, as you say, something cometh is most certainly from Harper... an intention to break a social contract with Canadians; to raise the OAS age eligibility level based on a false premise, a fake crisis, that OAS is projected to be "unsustainable".

cybercoma · February 2, 2012

Canadians don't want seniors to wait for benefits

OTTAWA — Three-quarters of Canadians oppose raising the age of eligibility — from 65 to 67 — for the Old Age Security (OAS) benefit a new poll has found.

The national survey by Ipsos Reid, conducted this week for Postmedia News and Global TV suggests Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government could have a tough public- relations battle on its hands as it moves forward with plans to reform the country's public pension plan.

Harper doesn't care. Three-quarters of Canadians didn't vote for him.

Scotty · February 3, 2012

Canadians don't want seniors to wait for benefits

OTTAWA — Three-quarters of Canadians oppose raising the age of eligibility — from 65 to 67 — for the Old Age Security (OAS) benefit a new poll has found.

Yes, Canadians are fairly well known for wanting all the best possible social benefits while paying low taxes. That's how we got our debt in the first place.

No doubt you could have taken this poll in Greece or Portugal or Italy twenty years ago and gotten the exact same response.

Scotty · February 3, 2012

How can the government say there will be more people retired than working people? The government allows people in Canada and I think it is around 250,000 yearly and I'm sure they are not seniors, they are working age people..

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.

fellowtraveller · February 3, 2012

"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."

PBO Page simply states facts and asks a question based upon those facts. Your attempt to isolate Page's words was a fail - big time!

I don't see any facts in what Page said. There are hints and speculation, and a question followed by an admission he doesn't know what is going on because he has no facts and no information. Like you, he has no facts. I can see how the not knowing what is going on would appeal to some. No need to mention names.

PBO Page's drivel? Asking a factual based question is... drivel?

Yes, meaningless speculation and drivel and that is being charitable. See above. Once that throbbing vein in your forehead has settled, read what he wrote.

waldo · February 3, 2012

I don't see any facts in what Page said.

well, of course... you don't! Here, read it again... read your failed word isolation/parsing farce:

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?

jacee · February 3, 2012

Harper doesn't care. Three-quarters of Canadians didn't vote for him.

Too true!

cybercoma · 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.

Here's the numbers.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2010/permanent/06.asp

punked · 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.

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

MiddleClassCentrist · February 3, 2012

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.

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.