Poor-Bashing is Never the Answer

Saturn · January 2, 2007

So basically yes they do get it.

Not necessarily, I mixed up OAS and GIS. Snowbirds get OAS and would get GIS (if their prolonged absence went unnoticed which is usually the case). I think that most of the Canadian-Lebanese didn't live in Canada longer than 20 years past the age of 18, so they wouldn't qualify for OAS.

Saturn · January 2, 2007

I think we may have found area one of cutbacks.

Yep, I found one long time ago - $10 billion worth of cutbacks. Make OAS income-tested and wealth-tested. Start clawing it back at $20K and eliminate at $30K. If assets exceed $500K, nix it. Enough free-rides in Florida on the backs of the working idiots at home.

Catchme · January 2, 2007

I think we may have found area one of cutbacks.

Yep, I found one long time ago - $10 billion worth of cutbacks. Make OAS income-tested and wealth-tested. Start clawing it back at $20K and eliminate at $30K. If assets exceed $500K, nix it. Enough free-rides in Florida on the backs of the working idiots at home.

Well, I think those are high thresh holds, I think it should be the same threshholds as welfare recipients, or lower, as welfare recipients are usually single parent families, and thereby require more living costs than do seniors.

And IMO, if you out of the country for more than 2 weeks, or a month for special circumstance, or even have a rated circumstances for time limits out of country, OAS payments should stop. OAS checks are directly depsoited its not like they have to be picked up and deposited. So the OAS delivery system should be tied to the border and customs crossing the same as EI, Welfare and WCB systems are. Those out of country over limit need not be getting paid, by working Canadians, to live elsewhere. Those billions of dollars would go well in our own economy too. I would say there would be more than 10 billion in cutbacks, and more money staying at home if their OAS was hinged upon it. It could/would be double plus for Canada and Canadians.

Saturn · January 2, 2007

Well, I think those are high thresh holds, I think it should be the same threshholds as welfare recipients, or lower, as welfare recipients are usually single parent families, and thereby require more living costs than do seniors.
And IMO, if you out of the country for more than 2 weeks, or a month for special circumstance, or even have a rated circumstances for time limits out of country, OAS payments should stop. OAS checks are directly depsoited its not like they have to be picked up and deposited. So the OAS delivery system should be tied to the border and customs crossing the same as EI, Welfare and WCB systems are. Those out of country over limit need not be getting paid, by working Canadians, to live elsewhere. Those billions of dollars would go well in our own economy too. I would say there would be more than 10 billion in cutbacks, and more money staying at home if their OAS was hinged upon it. It could/would be double plus for Canada and Canadians.

Well, you could argue that older people may need help to do ordinary things like dress, shop, feed themselves, etc. and that they may have to pay for that help. I'm willing to give seniors a bit of a slack so my suggested thresholds are rather generous but they would be a good start. No senior (or anyone else) should be taking my tax dollars outside the country, so yes, no OAS or GIS for anyone leaving for more than a month. It is absurd that seniors with $100K in income would be free-riding (overseas) on the backs of Canadian workers when 1 in 6 children in Canada live below the poverty line.

myata · January 2, 2007

To round it up, CPP has absolutely nothing to do with OAS or GIS. CPP contributions entitle you to CPP benefits. OAS is a payment made to all who are 65 or older and have been a resident of Canada for 10 years (roughly). You may have spend your entire life in jail and not paid a cent into the CPP and you will still receive $5,800 just because you are 65. Now go read the link I provided earlier and stop insisting that apples are oranges.

????? Can you spell "Canadian Pension Plan"? Your payments into the pension plan have nothing to do with benefits you'll receive upon retirement? You're truly breaking new ground here, my friend.

CPP payments and OAS benefits that result from it are, like, life insurance. You contribute, you receive benefit. Really easy. Those who do not contribute may still receive it as a social benefit to allow decent living when they can no longer provide for themselves, but it doesn't change the big picture one bit. CPP is not a tax, it's a pension plan for all residents of this country. One is supposed to contribute (when they can) and one is entitled to benefits, especially if they did contribute for most of their productive lives. And the plight of poor little children has little to do with this particular subject.

BTW, as it came into the discussion, maybe (at last) it's about time to start charting some solutions - those that will work and actually help some poor children and, perhaps, some of their parents (note, maybe not ALL poor children on this planet), as opposed to pathetically pointing it out at every occasion?

Saturn · January 2, 2007

????? Can you spell "Canadian Pension Plan"?
CPP payments and OAS benefits that result from it are, like, life insurance.

Can you spell confused?

Those who do not contribute may still receive it as a social benefit to allow decent living when they can no longer provide for themselves...

$60K in income doesn't sound like you can no longer provide for yourself.

Renegade · January 2, 2007

CPP payments and OAS benefits that result from it are, like, life insurance. You contribute, you receive benefit.

Your analogy is not correct. Life Insurance is based upon risk, and transfering risk to the insurer. If you drop dead immediately after your coverage comes into effect, you still get paid with life insurance. CPP is structured more like a pension plan, in which payout is supposed to be reflective of contribution over the person's lifetime.

OAS is neither like a pension plan nor is it like life insurance. Unlike life insurance, with OAS there is no requirement to contribute anything in order to collect. OAS is more like a welfare scheme for seniors.

BTW, this whole line of discussion better belongs here: Seniors and Entitlement

Wilber · January 2, 2007

No, people with 100K incomes don't collect GIS. They collect OAS. People with $60K incomes collect $5,800 in OAS. And OAS is free - it's money for nothing. What exactly makes you think that you are entitled to spend in Florida my salary for the full month of January, while I'm busting my ass working in the cold for it? Especially when you are sitting on an income comparable to my own and on far more assets than I own? As far as I can tell, that's nothing but legalized theft! Then you proceed to spend my salary for February, March, and April because you require health-care. Fine job mister, now you can keep going on and on about my slip on the tax status of OAS vs GIS.

I don't know what assets you have and you don't know anything about mine but what the hell do you think I was doing all my working life while my parents and their friends enjoyed their retirement? So far I haven't spent a winter down south but I hope to.

Then if I happened have an accident, lost my job and my savings, and ended up on welfare, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs that I'm ripping you off.

The hell I would.

Fine job mister, now you can keep going on and on about my slip on the tax status of OAS vs GIS.

Then get your facts straight before you accuse people of dishonesty.

PolyNewbie · January 3, 2007

The bankers get their money for nothing. The CEO's of the big corporations make several hundred times what the average worker makes. Lawyers screw you out of your money at the tune of a few hundred an hour and call themselves noble, honorable & distinguished in the process.

If you want to get angry at freeloaders, there is a far bigger target than a Jamacian woman with a van and a big screen TV collecting welfare. If we have a safety net there will always be a few that get more than they need. This is better than the multitudes taking more than they deserve and us letting them get away with it.

myata · January 3, 2007

OK, OAS and CPP do seem to be different things (all the things you can learn here!), thanks for the nudge to check it out. CPP being a contribution scheme, it is (a defined benefit, but I kind of agree that OAS should be linked to income. Maybe with federal surpluses rolling in, things aren't as bad just yet?

Still, even if these funds were switched 100% to welfare system, it isn't clear how it would advance the cause of poor children. It's quite obvious that direct welfare payments are on average at level with the current state of economy. Some, perhaps, can be invested into development and councelling programes but those must be specific to the need (functional and local). I doubt there's a "magic bullet" solution (and I'm not sure we've even defined the problem in the first place).

mikedavid00 · January 3, 2007

I think that most of the Canadian-Lebanese didn't live in Canada longer than 20 years past the age of 18, so they wouldn't qualify for OAS.

Read the fine print. And what is 'living in Canada'.

mikedavid00 · January 3, 2007

If you want to get angry at freeloaders, there is a far bigger target than a Jamacian woman with a van and a big screen TV collecting welfare.

The difference is, numbers back-up how immigration is destroying our welfare state, a lawyer getting $200 an hour to help pay his employees is a small, and fair amount and he is not collecting our tax dollars or helping destroy our country. Get a machanic and that will cost $80/h here. Find out how much specialized business consultants cost and you will get near the $200 mark.

Don't compare apples and oranges.

Wilber · January 3, 2007

Like Myata said, it does get you thinking. It is hard to make a case for OAS for seniors who already have good incomes but what is the alternative. If you tie it to CPP and make it part of a pension plan, you exclude the people who were not in a position to contribute to CPP, the ones who need it most. Do you tie it to the GIS and up the combined income threshold for those who receive it and if so to what? I don't know what the average seniors combined income is. Upping the threshold to say $30,000 for a full benefit and no benefit above that might be as, or more expensive than a universal system. Methinks it is a little more complicated than it seems on the surface.

stignasty · January 3, 2007

Like Myata said, it does get you thinking. It is hard to make a case for OAS for seniors who already have good incomes but what is the alternative. If you tie it to CPP and make it part of a pension plan, you exclude the people who were not in a position to contribute to CPP, the ones who need it most. Do you tie it to the GIS and up the combined income threshold for those who receive it and if so to what? I don't know what the average seniors combined income is. Upping the threshold to say $30,000 for a full benefit and no benefit above that might be as, or more expensive than a universal system. Methinks it is a little more complicated than it seems on the surface.

In the '80s the PCs floated the idea of indexing OAS but the NDP rallied seniors groups and it was dropped.

myata · January 3, 2007

That's true. From practical perspective, calling for this kind of reform would cost too much (in votes) for any party to attempt, without some dire reason that would justify it.

Saturn · January 3, 2007

In the '80s the PCs floated the idea of indexing OAS but the NDP rallied seniors groups and it was dropped.

OAS is indexed, I don't know what you're talking about.

Saturn · January 3, 2007

Like Myata said, it does get you thinking. It is hard to make a case for OAS for seniors who already have good incomes but what is the alternative. If you tie it to CPP and make it part of a pension plan, you exclude the people who were not in a position to contribute to CPP, the ones who need it most. Do you tie it to the GIS and up the combined income threshold for those who receive it and if so to what? I don't know what the average seniors combined income is. Upping the threshold to say $30,000 for a full benefit and no benefit above that might be as, or more expensive than a universal system. Methinks it is a little more complicated than it seems on the surface.

The alternative is to nix it altogether. CPP is a pension, so OAS cannot be part of it. GIS is income tested and is specifically designed as a benefit to seniors with low income. Bumping up GIS by the amount of OAS for low-income seniors and increasing the limit where the clawback kicks in will ensure that no seniors go without sufficient income.

OAS is a bad tool designed in the 60s to reduce poverty among seniors (which was btw of similar proportions as child poverty back then and also today). As the number of seniors was small and seniors lived few years beyond 65 on average, it was a relatively cheap program. To gain the needed support to pass it, the politicians figured out that they had to make it nearly universal, hence the generous benefits for seniors with high incomes. The program achieved its stated objective and the poverty rate among seniors dropped to near 0. Child poverty received a lot of talking but no action simply because children don't vote, the parents of poor children are also the group that is least likely to vote, and there were more children living in poverty, so such a program would have been more costly.

Fast forward 40 years. Life spans have increased substantially and seniors make up an ever increasing proportion of the population. OAS costs have gone up to $17 billion/yr or 10 cents on every dollar of Federal revenues. OAS is the second largest expense on the Fed's financial statements (after interest on the debt). Child poverty is still at comparable rates to what it's been over the last 40 years (and dropped a bit due to a reason entirely different from social policy).

Fast forward another 20 years. The baby boom generation has made it into the 65+ group. OAS costs have more than doubled, eating up over a third of federal revenues. Now what do you do?

If children are the future, why are we investing in the past instead? How long do we have to keep giving our tax dollars to a bulging group of seniors with comfortable incomes before our generosity leads to bankruptcy?

margrace · January 3, 2007

Like Myata said, it does get you thinking. It is hard to make a case for OAS for seniors who already have good incomes but what is the alternative. If you tie it to CPP and make it part of a pension plan, you exclude the people who were not in a position to contribute to CPP, the ones who need it most. Do you tie it to the GIS and up the combined income threshold for those who receive it and if so to what? I don't know what the average seniors combined income is. Upping the threshold to say $30,000 for a full benefit and no benefit above that might be as, or more expensive than a universal system. Methinks it is a little more complicated than it seems on the surface.

The total for OAS a year plus GIS is Between $10 thousand and $11 thousand a year. It would be nice if the threshold was $30,000, dream on.

myata · January 3, 2007

And again, everyone (or at least, great majority here) seem to agree that would be a good thing to do. The big question is "How". That's one area where left is so lacking (and wanting) and one reason why NDP will be in power no sooner than the second coming. They like to point out problems that someone else has to fix, while they would wallow in goodness and brotherly love. Same for the child poverty, etc.

Saturn · January 3, 2007

Upping the threshold to say $30,000 for a full benefit and no benefit above that might be as, or more expensive than a universal system. Methinks it is a little more complicated than it seems on the surface.

??? How is reducing the income threshold to $30K more expensive? Me thinks it's a very simple case of reducing excessive benefits (to people who don't need them) that cost the taxpayer an arm and a leg and will end up ravaging federal finances within a decade or two.

Saturn · January 3, 2007

And again, everyone (or at least, great majority here) seem to agree that would be a good thing to do. The big question is "How". That's one area where left is so lacking (and wanting) and one reason why NDP will be in power no sooner than the second coming. They like to point out problems that someone else has to fix, while they would wallow in goodness and brotherly love. Same for the child poverty, etc.

No need to go after the left here. It is the conservatives that favour this kind of "universal" benefits as a good means for vote buying (universal child care cheques anyone?).

It is also the conservatives who are pushing for tax cuts to let the baby boomers off the hook for their expenses (they benefit disproportionately from tax cuts and from not paying down their debt). Let them off the hook now and watch your future taxes skyrocket as they retire and vote you into paying more for their OAS, their health care and their debt. That's what current conservative ideology comes down to - shovel money out the door and consume younger generations out of existence while you can.

myata · January 3, 2007

Sorry to break it to you... but you surely understand, we're still living in a democracy? So the opinion of "baby boomers" should and will count in proportion to their numbers. All previous attempts to force feed goody ideas to people against their will ended miserably.

Saturn · January 3, 2007

Sorry to break it to you... but you surely understand, we're still living in a democracy? So the opinion of "baby boomers" should and will count in proportion to their numbers. All previous attempts to force feed goody ideas to people against their will ended miserably.

Now that we are both fully aware of the power of large numbers, we can agree that supporting conservative ideas and helping those with the big numbers get off the hook for their expenses and piling it up for others to pay later, is a truly stupid move for anyone in subsequent generations, no?

Renegade · January 3, 2007

It is also the conservatives who are pushing for tax cuts to let the baby boomers off the hook for their expenses (they benefit disproportionately from tax cuts and from not paying down their debt). Let them off the hook now and watch your future taxes skyrocket as they retire and vote you into paying more for their OAS, their health care and their debt. That's what current conservative ideology comes down to - shovel money out the door and consume younger generations out of existence while you can.

Sorry to break it to you... but you surely understand, we're still living in a democracy? So the opinion of "baby boomers" should and will count in proportion to their numbers. All previous attempts to force feed goody ideas to people against their will ended miserably.

Saturn and myata, a question for the two of you. Suppose in the future the over-65 crowd is the majority of the voting population. Do they have the right to elect a government which will increase benefits to themselves at the expense of increased taxes to those still woking? In a democracy, what would stop them from doing so?

Saturn · January 3, 2007

Saturn and myata, a question for the two of you. Suppose in the future the over-65 crowd is the majority of the voting population. Do they have the right to elect a government which will increase benefits to themselves at the expense of increased taxes to those still woking? In a democracy, what would stop them from doing so?

As I pointed out earlier - nothing will stop them from doing so. And this is exactly what WILL happen. They have the numbers to give themselves large tax breaks now and to tripple taxes later as it is to their advantage (or so they believe). What doesn't make sense to me is to hear youth, who are barely joining the working population or not quite there yet, promoting the same policies. That's, what's a PC word for it...yes, just plain stupid!