Old age security reform

[punked]

It isn't, but it is important for us to ensure that we control expenses. We have to plan for the worst going forward.

When has our government ever done that? Remember unaffordable hst and corporate tax cut?

[Smallc]

When has our government ever done that? Remember unaffordable hst and corporate tax cut?

For about the last decade and a half. HST, btw, isn't really costing money in the long run, and neither does the corporate tax cut to the extent that it seems. Take it away, and revenues do not rise by an equal amount.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Smallc

[punked]

For about the last decade and a half. HST, btw, isn't really costing money in the long run, and neither does the corporate tax cut to the extent that it seems. Take it away, and revenues do not rise by an equal amount.

Yah the math on that one does add up Smallc we both know that. Tax cuts can lead to higher spending and higher growth but only when it is at a certain level. We are far below that level. Those cuts cost us.

Edited February 19, 2012 by punked

[Smallc]

Yah the math on that one does add up Smallc we both know that. Tax cuts can lead to higher spending and higher growth but only when it is at a certain level. We are far below that level.

Are we? Who says? You?

[punked]

Are we? Who says? You?

Then tell me what is the ideal rate is it 0? Is it 90? What is it? The government revenue has gone down so what is it?

[Smallc]

Then tell me what is the ideal rate is it 0? Is it 90? What is it? The government revenue has gone down so what is it?

Government revenue has only gone down for one reason, and you know that. It has nothing to do with the corporate tax rates (and I believe, at current, corporate tax revenues are increasing on a monthly basis).

Oh, and I don't know the ideal rate. You were the one that purported to know it.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Smallc

[punked]

Government revenue has only gone down for one reason, and you know that. It has nothing to do with the corporate tax rates (and I believe, at current, corporate tax revenues are increasing on a monthly basis).

We both know there isn't only reason that revenue is down we would be back in the black if it wasn't for these tax cuts.

[Smallc]

We both know there isn't only reason that revenue is down we would be back in the black if it wasn't for these tax cuts.

No, one of us actually knows that in fact isn't true. The corporate tax cuts alone or really any of the tax cuts don't make up for the drop in revenues and the additional spending related to the recession of 2008 - 2009.

[Sa'adoni]

see its not a bad news afterall

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/21/canada-budget-pensions-idUSL2E8DLEG420120221

[PIK]

Maybe we should wait for the budget to come out on this,instead of reading in the paper or listening to the tv or radio, to find out what is really going on. Alot of stress for people in the last few weeks over this for nothing . A few lines from harper in davos and the media has the elderly thinking their cheques are being cancelled all together. Sickening.

[punked]

Maybe we should wait for the budget to come out on this,instead of reading in the paper or listening to the tv or radio, to find out what is really going on. Alot of stress for people in the last few weeks over this for nothing . A few lines from harper in davos and the media has the elderly thinking their cheques are being cancelled all together. Sickening.

Maybe the government should tell the people their plan, go to the polls and have them vote on it before they make large changes such as this? Oh wait that is only how Canada use to be never mind, now we have a country where parties get in not telling what they will do and surprise us when they get in power. I am sure in 2015 when we through these guys out they will land on their feet so what do they care they never gave us a chance to vote on this new platform of theirs.

[Smallc]

Maybe the government should tell the people their plan, go to the polls and have them vote on it before they make large changes such as this?

So should governments do that for everything that you consider important from here on out. First, we don't know what the changes are, and second, we know they won't happen until after the next election or even until the one after that. There's plenty of time for people to vote on this issue, and many others. This is a representative democracy, after all, not a direct one.

[punked]

So should governments do that for everything that you consider important from here on out. First, we don't know what the changes are, and second, we know they won't happen until after the next election or even until the one after that. There's plenty of time for people to vote on this issue, and many others. This is a representative democracy, after all, not a direct one.

Yes they should put their plans in their platform. I fail to see why that is a bad idea. This isn't small thing it is a very large change, if the people want it then the government will win. That is why the government can call an election anytime.

[Smallc]

And, again, nothing is being done until after the next election, so your misguided populist point is completely moot.

[punked]

And, again, nothing is being done until after the next election, so your misguided populist point is completely moot.

It is a fine point. We just had an election they could have told us about their plan then.

[Smallc]

It is a fine point. We just had an election they could have told us about their plan then.

Why? They aren't doing anything yet.

[punked]

Why? They aren't doing anything yet.

So when the say they will putting it in the budget that is just cause eh?

[Smallc]

So when the say they will putting it in the budget that is just cause eh?

They said that the budget will lay out the steps, probably a timeline of 10 - 15 years. People will have ample time to vote on it, calm down.

[punked]

They said that the budget will lay out the steps, probably a timeline of 10 - 15 years. People will have ample time to vote on it, calm down.

Can wait to vote on this that is for sure.

[Topaz]

This morning the House is debating the OAS changes by the Tories and we all know the Tories will past it but one of the reasons for it was that other countries were doing it. The countries doing it were the ones like Britain, whose age was below 65, so when Finley says other countries are changing theirs, its to 65. I would like to know what the savings by taking it to 67 and since the CPP is doing so well, why not invest the money the same way and then no one will have to suffer under this rule.

[msj]

This morning the House is debating the OAS changes by the Tories and we all know the Tories will past it but one of the reasons for it was that other countries were doing it. The countries doing it were the ones like Britain, whose age was below 65, so when Finley says other countries are changing theirs, its to 65. I would like to know what the savings by taking it to 67 and since the CPP is doing so well, why not invest the money the same way and then no one will have to suffer under this rule.

OAS is not funded the same way as CPP.

You pay into CPP and your employer matches your contribution (if you are self-employed then you pay both portions).

This money actually goes to a separate fund.

OAS is paid into, and paid for, out of general revenue.

----------------

You are right, however, that it would be nice to know what actuaries think of OAS' future.

I know people like to go back to Otto von Bismarck and claim that since he set the age at 65 back in the late 1800's that it only makes sense to raise the age now (to what, like 82? ).

The folly, of course, is that Bismarck lived in a time without the tax policies that we have today.

This comparison made strictly on age and life expectancy without regard for, you know, actually funding a pension is incomplete, to say the least and to put it politely.

But I think Canadians like to hear about the need for sacrifice even though we seem incapable of actually doing much sacrificing (hence our negative savings rate, lack of retirement savings, reliance on real estate for retirement, etc).

[Topaz]

I've been listening to the debate on this one item that doesn't make sense is the the Tories say there isn't going to be enough money to cover at 65, so the change to 67 is needed. They also say that the province will have to pickup the slack with welfare which the Feds will cover. So if there's not enough for 65 OAS then where is the money coming from for the welfare to the provinces for welfare for two years? The NDP think that Canadians will also have to wait for CPP til 67 and I'm not sure on that but I do know they have increased the % for taking CPP at 60. Also, the OAS, GIS and the MP's pension all come out of the general revenues and with the increase of MP's along with increase in their wages and pesnions, I guess, WE, taxpayers have to let the MP's pension overide our benefits.