Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

That don't save for their retirement at all and don't qualify for CPP.

What is happening is that those under 54 are paying for those over 54 to retire earlier then they do. That is what is happening and that isn't fair.

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I'm not sure what you're talking about. It saves people under 54 from facing a massive burden of shouldering the load for the boomer generation's retirement.

WE ARE STILL PAYING FOR THE BOOMERS TO RETIRE EARLIER. We are paying for it by working longer then the boomers do.

Posted

WE ARE STILL PAYING FOR THE BOOMERS TO RETIRE EARLIER.

THIS ISN'T EVEN ABOUT THAT, BUT MORE ABOUT THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE LIVING LONGER.

Posted

THIS ISN'T EVEN ABOUT THAT, BUT MORE ABOUT THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE LIVING LONGER.

It also has the happy by-product of not harming the baby boomer generation,who coincidentally,are the largest voting demographic in this country...

And those of us who aren't of that generation are going to pay for them...What we get out of that in the end is a fairly open question...

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!

Posted

THIS ISN'T EVEN ABOUT THAT, BUT MORE ABOUT THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE LIVING LONGER.

It is about much more then that. Just because Harper did it doesn't mean we don't get to have this debate. For now though the question remains why didn't they say anything 10 months ago?

Posted

For now though the question remains why didn't they say anything 10 months ago?

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on that. Government's do that all the time, including the amazing NDP.

Posted

It also has the happy by-product of not harming the baby boomer generation,who coincidentally,are the largest voting demographic in this country...

It starts in 2023, so it will definitely have an impact on some of them. 2030 seems to be the year they're most worried about. By then, OAS costs will have risen from $38B to $108B

Guest Derek L
Posted

Not sure, but the CCG gets a much needed injection.

Military, aid and diplomacy face deep cuts in Tory budget

By 2014-15, more than $1.1-billion a year will be lopped off the regular Defence budget. But that’s not all. In addition, $3.5-billion in capital spending - the sums the military uses to buy equipment like planes, ships, trucks, tanks and weapons - will be put off until seven years from now, so that the government can save an average of $500-million a year.

Still think we’ll be getting 15 surface combatants and 6-8 AOPS? ;)

Ottawa also didn’t really say how the cuts will be made. The budget said the Defence Department will streamline contracting procedures, and centralize property and human resources management - but hasn’t detailed cuts to its large civilian staff or operations, other than to say that the current number of uniformed members of the Canadian Forces will not be reduced. It did not identify which purchases of equipment will be delayed over the next seven years.

Translation:

streamline contracting procedures: Further sole sourcing, and a decline in civilian and military personal making a career on the project team of any given equipment replacement program.

centralize property: Bases Closures!!!! Goodbye any one of or a combination of CFB Goose Bay, CFB Gander, CFB Borden, CFB Winnipeg, CFB North Bay, CFB Montreal and CFB Kingston.

See which of the above bases don’t happen to be in a Conservative riding………

human resources management: Lay-offs to the Mandarins, both Civilian and Military, at NDHQ in Ottawa.

Posted

Still think we’ll be getting 15 surface combatants and 6-8 AOPS? ;)

There's actually no talk of reducing the capital budget, only shifting some things until after 2015.

Posted

HOW DEAR YOU COMPARE THE NDP TO ANY OTHER POLITICAL PARTY!!!! THE NDP ARE PERFECT AND NEVER LIE, PERFECT EXAMPLE!

"Because governments have done it in the past we should never ask them to be better in the future!"-SmallC and Newfoundlander

Yah you guys do sound like Conservatives now. Seriously that is your argument. That is how you justify bad governance?

Guest Derek L
Posted

There's actually no talk of reducing the capital budget, only shifting some things until after 2015.

“Shifting” till 2015? I wouldn’t hold your breath………..3.5 Billion, that’s either ~3 surface combatants (The 280s replacement) or the AOPS program, of which, is not a top priority of the Navy……….A boost to the CCG and “shifting” of funds from DND’s procurement budget………I think those slush breakers are stillborn (and rightfully so IMV)

To add, that could also be FWSAR……..

Posted

"Because governments have done it in the past we should never ask them to be better in the future!"-SmallC and Newfoundlander

Yah you guys do sound like Conservatives now. Seriously that is your argument. That is how you justify bad governance?

I'm a Dipper!

Posted

Except that it isn't bad governance.

Government not telling tax payers their plans is good governance. See here is where we disagree. I think a government should tell of the big details of their plans, and you think they should not tell of their plans.

Posted (edited)

3.5 Billion,

That actually wasn't what the journalists though it was. That was a bit over each year, moved down, some of which had already been lost because DND couldn't spend it. They're actually not losing there.

Also, CSES is being moved out of the DND envelope with it's own budget, and the budget was set to grow over this time anyway. Now, it probably won't grow, and may even shrink a small amount, but it isn't what it seemed.

The G&M article you linked actually had very little right.

Edited by Smallc
Posted
Government not telling tax payers their plans is good governance. See here is where we disagree. I think a government should tell of the big details of their plans, and you think they should not tell of their plans.
The conservatives ran on a plan of prudent management of government finances. Changing the OAS eligibility a reasonable action based on what they promised.

In any case, this is really about you creating talking points to use to bash conservatives than any real concern on your part.

Posted

Government not telling tax payers their plans is good governance. See here is where we disagree. I think a government should tell of the big details of their plans, and you think they should not tell of their plans.

Well, again, the plan doesn't even start for 11 years, so it isn't as if there isn't time for people to digest it, consider it, and vote on it. Calm down.

Posted

It will only get worse for the younger generation.

We'll be paying for the boomers the rest of our lives only to have the services cut for ourselves.

Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.

Posted

Well, again, the plan doesn't even start for 11 years, so it isn't as if there isn't time for people to digest it, consider it, and vote on it. Calm down.

Punked could have just said that the NDP will win the next election anyway and then they'll annul this devastating OAS plan. ;)

"We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers

Posted

Punked could have just said that the NDP will win the next election anyway and then they'll annul this devastating OAS plan. ;)

You and I know that this won't happen. :D

He's obviously pissed that by 2015 the OAS issue will be as useless an attack took as In and Out.

Posted

Well, again, the plan doesn't even start for 11 years, so it isn't as if there isn't time for people to digest it, consider it, and vote on it. Calm down.

I agree smallc. I think the delay/phasein is reasonable.

Guest Derek L
Posted

That actually wasn't what the journalists though it was. That was a bit over each year, moved down, some of which had already been lost because DND couldn't spend it. They're actually not losing there.

Also, CSES is being moved out of the DND envelope with it's own budget, and the budget was set to grow over this time anyway. Now, it probably won't grow, and may even shrink a small amount, but it isn't what it seemed.

The G&M article you linked actually had very little right.

I will gladly stand corrected if you provide your sources………

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,909
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    miawilliams3232
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...