Poor-Bashing is Never the Answer

[Renegade]

As I pointed out earlier - nothing will stop them from doing so. And this is exactly what WILL happen.

But that is no different than if the poor are in the majority and vote themselves big benefits at the expense of the rich. If parents were in the majority, they would vote themselves generous childcare programs at the expense of non-parents.

Virtually every group is looking out for its own self-interest, and will support policies that in effect transfer wealth to itself, despite its "fairness" or lack thereof. Every group can define as "what is good for my group is "fair".

The fault lies not in the groups themselves but in the system which makes that possible. In essence democracy lets the majority rob the minority.

[Saturn]

The fault lies not in the groups themselves but in the system which makes that possible. In essence democracy lets the majority rob the minority.

True to a certain extent but democracy is the best system available so far. What's appropriate here is not to get rid of democracy. What would bring far more balance to our democratic system is for people to realize what their own interests are and vote accordingly. Instead of simply taking other's analysis of what's good for you as reality, people should question whose agenda the media (the number one force in formulating public opinion) has at heart: that of the "average" Canadian, your own, or that of middle-aged well-paid journalists their bosses and owners.

[margrace]

Boy some people on here are sure Ayne Rand people. I liked her books too but they were all fictional BS the same as The left behind series.

[Saturn]

Boy some people on here are sure Ayne Rand people. I liked her books too but they were all fictional BS the same as The left behind series.

Care to tell us about Rand, The left behind series and what they have to do with OAS?

[Catchme]

Boy some people on here are sure Ayne Rand people. I liked her books too but they were all fictional BS the same as The left behind series.

Care to tell us about Rand, The left behind series and what they have to do with OAS?

I would say it has to do with the topic , and the comment why the right never get it right, as opposed to the off shoot topic of OAS.

[Renegade]

True to a certain extent but democracy is the best system available so far. What's appropriate here is not to get rid of democracy.

I aree. But what you can do is put checks in place so that the majority doesn't bully the minority. Some of these are in the Charter of Rights. For example the majority cannot pass laws which override the right of the minority to freedom of religion, unless they override the Charter. Similarily there can be checks in place to prevent the majority from plundering the wealth of the minority.

What would bring far more balance to our democratic system is for people to realize what their own interests are and vote accordingly. Instead of simply taking other's analysis of what's good for you as reality, people should question whose agenda the media (the number one force in formulating public opinion) has at heart: that of the "average" Canadian, your own, or that of middle-aged well-paid journalists their bosses and owners.

I disagee. If as you say, seniors will become the majority, it will matter very little if eveyone votes in their own interest. A majority of 51% will override the interest of a miniority of 49%, 100% of the time.

I also disagree that people should simply vote according to their own interests. Personally I vote according to my own set of values and what I think is fair. Sometimes it goes along with my interests, sometimes it doesn't.

[myata]

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?

A natural limit to this scenario will be the ability of the government to deliver on such a program (and the economy to support it).

[Wilber]

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.

The point I was trying to make is that now there is no GIS if your income is less than 20K and the OAS starts to be clawed back at about 60K. If the full OAS and GIS benefit was given to people with combined incomes of 30K or less and nothing above that, there might be enough people in that group to make it more expensive than the present program. I don't know if it is 30K, that is just an arbitrary number but there is a point where this would happen.

[margrace]

The point I was trying to make is that now there is no GIS if your income is less than 20K and the OAS starts to be clawed back at about 60K. If the full OAS and GIS benefit was given to people with combined incomes of 30K or less and nothing above that, there might be enough people in that group to make it more expensive than the present program. I don't know if it is 30K, that is just an arbitrary number but there is a point where this would happen.

Wilbur I don't understand what you are trying to say. OAS payment per year is 5706.63. Anything over that is GIS. I am not sure what the highest GIS is that you can get but any money you get extra is directly cut off you GIS. If you need to pay a bill and take cash from you Rifs then your GIS is cut accordingly. So have RRSP's was no help to me. I think there is no GIS payments to anyone married to someone receiving OAS nor do they get anything more. So I think taxation begins at around $11,500. for a couple. So that is the maximum benefit for a married couple with no pensions or savings.

[Wilber]

What I am saying is that if you increase the maximum income a person can have and still receive a full benefit and cut off those above, there is a point where they will out number those who now receive no benefit at all. I don't know what that point is, I just picked 30K because I thought it might be in the ball park. I'm not advocating anything, just that changing the program without affecting its total cost is likely a far more complicated process than we might think.

[Renegade]

A natural limit to this scenario will be the ability of the government to deliver on such a program (and the economy to support it).

I doubt such a natural limit exist. Extravagant spending in the 70s and 80s showed that governments can spend well beyond their means and accumulate debt. The effects on the economy may not be immediate and can even happen decades after the actions are undertaken. So what happens if 15 years later the economy is in ruins, and the huge debt has been piled on? Is that the time the natural limit kicks in?

[Saturn]

What I am saying is that if you increase the maximum income a person can have and still receive a full benefit and cut off those above, there is a point where they will out number those who now receive no benefit at all. I don't know what that point is, I just picked 30K because I thought it might be in the ball park. I'm not advocating anything, just that changing the program without affecting its total cost is likely a far more complicated process than we might think.

When I said eliminate the OAS and bump up the GIS by the same amount for people with incomes under $20K, I didn't mean that there would be any change in the total benefit. I simply meant that we should call the OAS portion these people receive GIS. Similarly, OAS (now called GIS) would be clawed back starting at $20K and fully eliminated at $30K or so. This will ensure that seniors with low incomes have sufficient incomes and will yield some $5 billion in savings right now. The reality is that OAS is simply unsustainable in its current form with increased lifespans and the large number of seniors which will only keep going up and up.

[Saturn]

A natural limit to this scenario will be the ability of the government to deliver on such a program (and the economy to support it).

If there was a useful "natural limit" to how much people can spend, personal bankruptcies would not exist. Unfortunately, for many the "natural limit" is only reached after their finances are in total disarray and a bankruptcy is the only way out. I don't think that this is how our country's finances should be handled.

[myata]

I doubt such a natural limit exist. Extravagant spending in the 70s and 80s showed that governments can spend well beyond their means and accumulate debt. The effects on the economy may not be immediate and can even happen decades after the actions are undertaken. So what happens if 15 years later the economy is in ruins, and the huge debt has been piled on? Is that the time the natural limit kicks in?

Exactly. Eventually it'll start hurting and the wrong policy will have to be changed (along with the government that promoted it) - democratically. Understand, that imperfect as it is, the alternative is to give the control to a minority - which almost always means selected small group of people, which, as history shows, would almost certainly screw up big one way or another.

[Saturn]

I disagee. If as you say, seniors will become the majority, it will matter very little if eveyone votes in their own interest. A majority of 51% will override the interest of a miniority of 49%, 100% of the time.

I also disagree that people should simply vote according to their own interests. Personally I vote according to my own set of values and what I think is fair. Sometimes it goes along with my interests, sometimes it doesn't.

However skewed the age distribution of the population, seniors will not become the majority in the foreseeable future. The only reason they have a huge advantage politically is that they are more likely to vote than any other group and they are about 4 times as likely to vote as the under 30 crowd. In addition, what also skews policy in their favour is the "set of values" that middle-aged journalists and their bosses and owners has installed in the general population - namely go after the peanuts (welfare) but never think about seniors' benefits (far more expensive than welfare), and give us taxcuts (because we are in the prime earning years of our lives and we benefit the most) but ignore the fact that you will later pay for them. As I said, if younger people knew what their own interests were and voted accordingly (and voted more often btw), the system would be more balanced and less skewed in favour of older generations.

[Renegade]

Exactly. Eventually it'll start hurting and the wrong policy will have to be changed (along with the government that promoted it) - democratically.

The point was that by the time it starts to hurt, it may be too late to recover or the cost of recovery may be huge. Let me give you an example. Global warming. For centuries government have implemented policies which gave no regard to environmental damage. By the time it starts to "hurt" 2 centuries later, it is either impossible or not feasable to fix the problem. Moreover the people who caused the problem and benefited from the destruction are long gone.

Understand, that imperfect as it is, the alternative is to give the control to a minority - which almost always means selected small group of people, which, as history shows, would almost certainly screw up big one way or another.

No, that is not the only alternative. In fact it is as much a problem to give ultimate control to a minority as it is to give ultimate control to the majority.

What I'm saying is that even in a "majority rule" democracy, there needs to be checks and balances so that the interests of the minority are not run over roughshod.

[Renegade]

However skewed the age distribution of the population, seniors will not become the majority in the foreseeable future. The only reason they have a huge advantage politically is that they are more likely to vote than any other group and they are about 4 times as likely to vote as the under 30 crowd.

It is probably true that seniors will never become a majority unless lifespans dramatically increase. But I wasn't speaking specificly of seniors. Unless you can somehow guarantee that the voting base will always be composed of hetrogenous groups, at some point a majority with sufficient common interest will exist. It is irrelevant whether this majority is formed on the basis of demographic, race, or immigration status.

The system allows the majority unfettered access to the purses of the minority, thus promoting the kind of outcome we discussed, even if you can somehow get everyone to vote and act in their own interest.

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

As an aside, does "acting in my own interest" mean voting to kill welfare, if I don't think it is a program I will ever use? Does "acting in my own interest" mean voting for no childcare, if I don't have kids? Etc? Should I always be putting my own interest firsts?

BTW, I'm a boomer and it is likely I will collect OAS, despite this I would vote to kill OAS as a program. I'm not acting in my own self interest. Should I be?

[myata]

What I'm saying is that even in a "majority rule" democracy, there needs to be checks and balances so that the interests of the minority are not run over roughshod.

I can only agree with that. Checks and balances are necessary part of a functioning democracy.

[Live From China]

As an aside, does "acting in my own interest" mean voting to kill welfare, if I don't think it is a program I will ever use? Does "acting in my own interest" mean voting for no childcare, if I don't have kids? Etc? Should I always be putting my own interest firsts?

An interesting question. Perhaps we can look at it this way: let's say we could vote to kill welfare. Then the people who collect welfare are probably going to be breaking into your house to find money (or stuff to steal to sell for money) or food. So, killing welfare, would probably be "acting against your best interest."

[Renegade]

As an aside, does "acting in my own interest" mean voting to kill welfare, if I don't think it is a program I will ever use? Does "acting in my own interest" mean voting for no childcare, if I don't have kids? Etc? Should I always be putting my own interest firsts?

An interesting question. Perhaps we can look at it this way: let's say we could vote to kill welfare. Then the people who collect welfare are probably going to be breaking into your house to find money (or stuff to steal to sell for money) or food. So, killing welfare, would probably be "acting against your best interest."

Ok, let's assume you are right. Then I should be only in favour of subsistance level welfare and no more, enough so that those who get welfare won't attack my property. Correct? It also may be in my interest to distribute the bulk of the welfare to young single males instead of mothers with kids, since they are the ones likely to break into my house.

Alternatively it may be more cost effective for me to hire more police or better secure my house. All valid choices, n'est pas?

[Live From China]

Ok, let's assume you are right. Then I should be only in favour of subsistance level welfare and no more, enough so that those who get welfare won't attack my property. Correct? It also may be in my interest to distribute the bulk of the welfare to young single males instead of mothers with kids, since they are the ones likely to break into my house.

Alternatively it may be more cost effective for me to hire more police or better secure my house. All valid choices, n'est pas?

All interesting points of view. Again, I guess we look at this in several ways. If we are simply trying to save money, then wouldn't it be more expensive to "kill welfare', but then turn around and hire more police? Or is there some kind of "punishment motive" here? (Just speaking in general terms here; not saying this is your motive). If one is on welfare, they are automatically defrauding the system, and have to be punished for their evil ways. I guess the question here is, "Why do we get so upset about people being on welfare?" Yes, I do not want to see people living in poverty. Yes, I would rather see welfare recipients get training, have a better life, etc. But given that there will always be poor people, I doubt we can ever "kill welfare." And I doubt most recipients are fraud artists, as many of them are children.

The word "kill" is interesting. If we "killed welfare", driving people into a hand-to-mouth existence, how long would it be before they were not just breaking into our houses, but killing us for food and money?

[myata]

There's a difference between acting in one's interest and acting in narrow interest. The second is more likely than not be counter to one's long term interests. Of course, what constitutes "true interest" is open to interpretation and has no absolute definition.

[Wilber]

The reality is that OAS is simply unsustainable in its current form with increased lifespans and the large number of seniors which will only keep going up and up.

I think you are probably correct. Although I don't have many years to go before I am eligible, I won't be surprised if I never see it.

[Renegade]

All interesting points of view. Again, I guess we look at this in several ways. If we are simply trying to save money, then wouldn't it be more expensive to "kill welfare', but then turn around and hire more police? Or is there some kind of "punishment motive" here? (Just speaking in general terms here; not saying this is your motive). If one is on welfare, they are automatically defrauding the system, and have to be punished for their evil ways. I guess the question here is, "Why do we get so upset about people being on welfare?" Yes, I do not want to see people living in poverty. Yes, I would rather see welfare recipients get training, have a better life, etc. But given that there will always be poor people, I doubt we can ever "kill welfare." And I doubt most recipients are fraud artists, as many of them are children.

The word "kill" is interesting. If we "killed welfare", driving people into a hand-to-mouth existence, how long would it be before they were not just breaking into our houses, but killing us for food and money?

My point in these post is not to suggest that we ought to eliminate the welfare program or hire more police. My point is simply that there are motivations when we choose to support programs which go beyond our own self-interests.

We may support welfare programs because we feel compassion. We may support SSM, or anti-discriminatory legislation out of a sense of fairness. There are are many other motivations beyond "self-interest" which should factor into which programs and policies we do or don't support. This is why I disagreed with Saturn when he advocated that each should be looking at issues strictly from the perspective of self-interest.

[Saturn]

As an aside, does "acting in my own interest" mean voting to kill welfare, if I don't think it is a program I will ever use? Does "acting in my own interest" mean voting for no childcare, if I don't have kids? Etc? Should I always be putting my own interest firsts?

BTW, I'm a boomer and it is likely I will collect OAS, despite this I would vote to kill OAS as a program. I'm not acting in my own self interest. Should I be?

If you are as nearsighted as you describe above, then you'd probably be doing yourself a disservice by "acting in your own interest". You may think that welfare is a program you will never use, but most people who have collected welfare didn't ever think they would need it either. If you have no kids and you vote against childcare, you would be missing the fact that you benefit from childcare indirectly, whether because children who are better taken care of are less likely to cost you money by ending up in jail or on welfare or whether or because you will need someone to take care of you when you get older and presumably a half-literate, former inmate would not be the best person to do so.

Again, if people are properly able to assess what their interests are and vote accordingly, we will have a much more balanced system than we currently do.