Old age security reform

Scotty · January 29, 2012

the consensus seems to be that the Harper Conservative government has not provided the "cost statements" you speak of... the ones, as you say, you're not ready to completely dismiss. What cost statements? What definitive, substantiated cost statements that clearly speak to the so-called "unsustainable" OAS... by when? What statements showing that a 2-year extension on the existing social contract with Canadians will make OAS sustainable? Other influences, other considerations? What statements?

To start with, the variation in costs between what Milligan gives us and the suggestion costs would rise to $108 billion annually by 2030. That ought to be fairly simple.

waldo · January 29, 2012

I have not dismissed Miligan.

he's just one guy, a guy... an economist with standing and a reputation. He's raised questions and doubt concerning the Harper Conservative suggestion that OAS is "unsustainable". You immediately speak to bias. Is he? I expect the way for the government to properly dismiss his (and others) perceived bias, is to clearly speak to the issue... you know, go beyond the floated Harper musings and subsequent ministerial/PMO 'damage-control' clown-show.

Scotty · January 29, 2012

he's just one guy, a guy... an economist with standing and a reputation. He's raised questions and doubt concerning the Harper Conservative suggestion that OAS is "unsustainable". You immediately speak to bias. Is he? I expect the way for the government to properly dismiss his (and others) perceived bias, is to clearly speak to the issue... you know, go beyond the floated Harper musings and subsequent ministerial/PMO 'damage-control' clown-show.

And I'm sure that will happen. The government will, I trust, have to respond to his statements and present evidence which supports the need for reform. He will, no doubt, then respond to that. And the opposition will find economists which counter the government, as well. Economists seem like lawyers, these days. You can always find one to say what you want him or her to say. So I think it foolish for us to base any real decisions on the initial pronouncements, or to dismiss either side of the case.

I will say this of Harper's motivations. The overwhelming motivation would be, I presume, to stay in power. Cutting back pensions is not likely to be politically profitable for him, especially given the percentage of seniors who currently vote Conservative. I would assume, then, that only overwhelming need, and the certainty of being able to demonstrate that need, would cause him to attempt such a thing.

waldo · January 29, 2012

I will say this of Harper's motivations. The overwhelming motivation would be, I presume, to stay in power.

this floater, and others soon to follow over the next 18 months... at that point, Harper will shift into what you highlight - staying in power mode. It's all about making the most radical/drastic shifts early... and then lay on the money/promises to presume to appease the masses and, as you say, stay in power.

msj · January 29, 2012

Punked and waldo - you are requiring Soctty to look at something that goes against his ideological bent.

Yes, that something may have more information than a press release based on thin air coming from the PMO's office but that's the way of the politics.

waldo · January 29, 2012

yes, agreed. And we all have degrees of bent - those with 'like bent' should be just as demanding in questions and scrutiny. Clearly, we're speaking to a part of the social fabric/framework of the country - there is a 'social contract' in place. Changing that framework and contract requires much, much more, than "press releases and thin air".

Scotty · January 29, 2012

this floater, and others soon to follow over the next 18 months... at that point, Harper will shift into what you highlight - staying in power mode. It's all about making the most radical/drastic shifts early... and then lay on the money/promises to presume to appease the masses and, as you say, stay in power.

I don't think attacking pensions is going to be forgotten in a few years, not when the results will live on for seniors. So I don't see any profitable reason why he would do this if it weren't necessary.

msj · January 29, 2012

yes, agreed. And we all have degrees of bent - those with 'like bent' should be just as demanding in questions and scrutiny. Clearly, we're speaking to a part of the social fabric/framework of the country - there is a 'social contract' in place. Changing that framework and contract requires much, much more, than "press releases and thin air".

Which is why I have no problem if Harper wants to strike up a commission on this.

In fact, while he's at it he should do one looking at taxation.

Scotty · January 29, 2012

Punked and waldo - you are requiring Soctty to look at something that goes against his ideological bent.

Yes, that something may have more information than a press release based on thin air coming from the PMO's office but that's the way of the politics.

To be clear. You're saying that in that press release, where they said the cost would rise to $108 billion dollars, they simply fabricated the number, made it up, lied openly on something which can be fairly easily verified by any number of professionals.

And then you accuse me of being ideological for not dismissing it out of hand like you do?

waldo · January 29, 2012

I don't think attacking pensions is going to be forgotten in a few years, not when the results will live on for seniors. So I don't see any profitable reason why he would do this if it weren't necessary.

see income trusts

waldo · January 29, 2012

Which is why I have no problem if Harper wants to strike up a commission on this.
In fact, while he's at it he should do one looking at taxation.

agreed - true independent & non-partisan... Royal Commission?

waldo · January 29, 2012

To be clear. You're saying that in that press release, where they said the cost would rise to $108 billion dollars, they simply fabricated the number, made it up, lied openly on something which can be fairly easily verified by any number of professionals.
And then you accuse me of being ideological for not dismissing it out of hand like you do?

would you really like me to also float a long litany of past Flaherty numbers and projections? Since you appear to accept anything presented to you, how does extending OAS eligibility suddenly make it "sustainable" by whatever year the Harper float settles in at?

Scotty · January 29, 2012

see income trusts

I think the consensus on that was it had to be done.

Scotty · January 29, 2012

would you really like me to also float a long litany of past Flaherty numbers and projections? Since you appear to accept anything presented to you,

I'm really not sure how anyone SANE can suggest from my previous posts on this that I have accepted the numbers given by the PMO.

scribblet · January 29, 2012

I think the consensus on that was it had to be done.

Agree on that...

I think people will agree that our current OAS system is unsustainable, but The CPC should also recognize that the response to the real problem of OAS unsustainability should have been a lot more politically astute, because we know what the knee-jerk reaction to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 would be.

Any reforms need to be packaged with reforms to MPs and civil servant pensions, and clearly spelled out. Not that it would stop the usual people from spinning into Harper killing old grannies or some such twaddle.

waldo · January 29, 2012

I think people will agree that our current OAS system is unsustainable, but The CPC should also recognize that the response to the real problem of OAS unsustainability should have been a lot more politically astute, because we know what the knee-jerk reaction to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 would be.

why do you automatically state that "people will agree"... when there's been nothing, nothing to support any floating flatulence concerning "unsustainable"? If you call questioning reaction, "knee-jerk", how do you refer to blind acceptance?

William Ashley · January 29, 2012

All I can say is that its good they are holding back a couple months on this, no one likes the cold especially 50 and some 60 year olds.

the russian defence won't be available to stem off public outrage.

but meh, hopefully its good and not just you're poor deal with it.

although it really IS a provincial issue. and provincial welfare will just suplate the OAS if they are broke I think it is $460 or something here in Ontario, not afar cry from oas.

only it is workfare *unless you got a medical condition`

provinces should love that first a billion more for the pot laws now 2 more years of supporting seniors on the plates of municpal welfare providers.

but with pensions drawn, I`m guesing it willbe almost negligible and they will be forced to a slave labour or a maximum of $460 per month.

Edited January 29, 2012 by William Ashley

scribblet · January 29, 2012

It'll be a lot longer that, if ever, he will likely present a package of reforms including public servants and MPs pension, it would be bad optics to not do that.

I'm 'guessing' you will be wrong and that if anything, the clawback threshold will be lowered, (partly because income splitting in some cases has staved off the clawback for some) lower income people will get a bit more via another GIS increase. He might lower the monthly amount but if he did he would allow people to pay more into a pooled pension fund, or something similar, which will only apply to the much younger people, not those nearing retirement. It's possible there will be other options, incentives to get people to collect at a later age, or a choice of system, as Paul Martin did with his proposed benefit package (which was quite draconian).

So far none of the dire booga booga predictions have come true from the tin foil hat crowd either.

All I can say is that its good they are holding back a couple months on this, no one likes the cold especially 50 and some 60 year olds.

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

but with pensions drawn, I`m guesing it willbe almost negligible and they will be forced to a slave labour or a maximum of $460 per month.

msj · January 29, 2012

To be clear. You're saying that in that press release, where they said the cost would rise to $108 billion dollars, they simply fabricated the number, made it up, lied openly on something which can be fairly easily verified by any number of professionals.

And then you accuse me of being ideological for not dismissing it out of hand like you do?

I'm saying to blindly accept the conclusions of a press release while doggedly attacking positions that question the conclusions of that press release is most assuredly ideological.

I have no problem admitting Harper could be right on this.

However, I doubt it.

I would like to see some of our best minds to look at this before I accept any conclusion being put forth by any politician.

jacee · January 29, 2012

why do you automatically state that "people will agree"... when there's been nothing, nothing to support any floating flatulence concerning "unsustainable"? If you call questioning reaction, "knee-jerk", how do you refer to blind acceptance?

I agree that people won't agree ... in fact Harper's backpedalling furiously already because of the huge outcry.

I haven't seen data on sustainability of OAS and I wouldn't trust Tory data anyway. It's true there will be a lot more seniors soon, but I think we're also a LOT better prepared for retirement than previous generations, especially women: We have our own pensions now, and our own CPP. A lot more of us won't need the GIS.

I can see the justification for lowering the threshold for clawing back the OAS to $100,000 or even less, since more people qualify now due to income splitting.

Smallc · January 30, 2012

That's the kind of arrogance that came back to haunt Chretien.

It's the system we have, and there isn't will to change it. Deal with it.

"deal with it" - wow! Perhaps "Smallc" has finally found a home... it's been painful to watch him struggle to find a party to settle in with; to flip and flop, to and fro.

Perhaps one day, you'll come up with a thought of your own. I'll support the party in the pragmatic middle. Right now, that's only one party.

punked · January 30, 2012

It's the system we have, and there isn't will to change it. Deal with it.

Perhaps one day, you'll come up with a thought of your own. I'll support the party in the pragmatic middle. Right now, that's only one party.

In the system we have the PM can call an election any time to ask for a mandate for big policies. It was done for Medicare, it was done for OAS and CPP, why can't it be done here. It was done the past in OUR system, in fact it is why the PM can call an election anytime so when he does everything he has PROMISED in his PLATFORM he can go back to the people and present a new plan. Tommy Douglas did it all the time when he was Premier, once he was done with his MANDATE from PLANS he OUTLINED during ELECTIONS he would go to the people and present his new plan. He didn't just pretend less then a year after an election people gave him a mandate to do whatever he wanted like you seem to think we gave Mr. Harper.

We voted on a platform, Harper won on that platform and he had nothing in there about OAS. He can ask the Canadian people if he so thinks we support that change otherwise he can pound sand.

cybercoma · January 30, 2012

It's done in the provinces too. It was done in Quebec when they nationalised hydro too. The provincial Liberals in NB lost their following election because they were heavily criticised for going back on election promises and not calling an election on selling NB Power to Quebec.

Edited January 30, 2012 by cybercoma

scribblet · January 30, 2012

He can't call an election, he brought in fixed 4 year term, so if he did do it, you'd be all over him for breaking that. Besides, people don't want elections at the drop of hat, we really want stability, so - gotta wait until the term is up.

capricorn · January 30, 2012

We voted on a platform, Harper won on that platform and he had nothing in there about OAS. He can ask the Canadian people if he so thinks we support that change otherwise he can pound sand.

We're over 3 years away from an election. Harper has plenty of time to flesh out any plan to make OAS sustainable for future generations and how he thinks we can get there. Also, there is plenty of time for the opposition to contribute ideas of their own on how to move forward. I'm sure they'll get to this once they stop flailing around with their accusations that's it's not fair and an attack on seniors.

What this OAS uproar has accomplished is to turn the attention of Canadians and politicians alike to the fact that ensuring the sustainability of government funded pension entitlements requires long term planning. Taking the long view has not been the forte of many politicians, in government and in opposition, who only think in terms of the next election. Well now, they have an opportunity to show they're not just in it for the gold plated pension. Speaking of those pensions, they're in our sights.