Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That would be meaningless, as neither jurisdiction is responsible for the other's debt.

The provinces are responsible for a good deal of spending which the federal government in the UK does as a matter of course. You cannot compare the two federal governments without taking that into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The provinces are responsible for a good deal of spending which the federal government in the UK does as a matter of course. You cannot compare the two federal governments without taking that into account.

How many provinces have large public pension responsibilities?

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I mistyped - large public pension responsibilities, since that was the topic.

They certainly have to pay a lot into the pensions of their very, very highly paid public servants. Quebec runs its own pension plan, and Ontario is getting into the business.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They certainly have to pay a lot into the pensions of their very, very highly paid public servants.

Yes, but those pale in comparison to the actual public pensions.

Quebec runs its own pension plan, and Ontario is getting into the business.

Yes, Quebec runs its own plan instead of the CPP. It, like the CPP, has more assets than liabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but those pale in comparison to the actual public pensions.

Yes, Quebec runs its own plan instead of the CPP. It, like the CPP, has more assets than liabilities.

The point is, however, that the OAS is funded out of general revenues. The higher the number of people claiming, the more the payout rises. The amount the government can tax is circumscribed, in part, by the fact the provinces are taxing a very high percentage of income from the same source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, however, that the OAS is funded out of general revenues. The higher the number of people claiming, the more the payout rises. The amount the government can tax is circumscribed, in part, by the fact the provinces are taxing a very high percentage of income from the same source.

Yes, I understand that, but getting money to less wealthy seniors seems like one of those things that I'm okay with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of them, I believe. Except Alberta. But that's changing.

No, Alberta took on a huge, multi billion dollar teachers pension shortfall and still owes on that.

You are right though in that we can expect AB to bomb their unions with money including pension money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) OAS is paid out of Federal revenues so this talk of the Provinces is BS.

2) Canada is in a net asset position: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeAg_5VUIAASFjg?format=pjpg&name=large

3) IOW: more misdirection from those who prefer we make a decision to raise the age limit without considering more data and other alternatives.

Good luck getting your points addressed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) OAS is paid out of Federal revenues so this talk of the Provinces is BS.

2) Canada is in a net asset position: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeAg_5VUIAASFjg?format=pjpg&name=large

3) IOW: more misdirection from those who prefer we make a decision to raise the age limit without considering more data and other alternatives.

Sure, that may be the case.

Hence my call for more data.

We need to understand this issue so we can decide whether we want to tax and spend at an age 65 level or if we want to tax less and spend less at an age 67 ( or whatever) level.

The point is is that we can choose numerous options of cutting, taxing and spending to achieve numerous results.

So far the default conversation is always about cutting the OAS by pushing the age level up without consideration of other options.

ETA: my response is to Argus and not dre. Have to skype with my French people now so later....

Yes, one can certainly analyze data and decide whether or not we can afford it. Of course, if we set a high enough priority for it, we can afford it. Heck, if we decided the top national priority was for people to retire at 60, we could probably afford that too.

But spending decisions are about making choices. Having the age be 65 costs more than having it be 67, that much I don't think is in dispute. I think somewhere earlier in this thread the difference was stated as being $7 billion or something? Are there or are there not better things to spend that $7 billion on? That's the real question, not whether or not it is "affordable". For example, we have a deficit in the tens of billions of dollars. Should we pay people to retire earlier, or should we reduce the deficit? I don't see any reason why it is necessary to go further and further into debt to pay people to retire at 65 when other advanced nations have raised the age to 67 or 68.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't dispute the generality of age 65 being more expensive than age 67. Of course it costs more.

What I dispute is the misdirection here as if the only option is to raise the age.

There are lots of options available and I would rather see an open and honest discussion of those options than merely ramming through a cut in people's retirement benefits on the assumption that it is not affordable.

The same goes with the assumptions that you make about the debt and deficit. Sure, we have a deficit in the tens of billions.

Throw in the fact that people who focus on the deficit with such precision often ignore the deferred R&M needed to infrastructure and we once again have a situation where only part of something is being considered (the fiscal debt/deficit) while the infrastructure deficit (which is largely invisible until a bridge collapses) goes unnoticed and the asset side is completely ignored.

To have such glaring holes in one's perspective should be enough for anyone to step back and admit: hold on, there is more to consider and maybe we should get the data and opinions from people who know this stuff prior to making a decision one way or the other.

For this Trudeau is worthy of criticism for bringing it back to 65 just like Harper is for moving it to 67: show us the data!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, one can certainly analyze data and decide whether or not we can afford it. Of course, if we set a high enough priority for it, we can afford it. Heck, if we decided the top national priority was for people to retire at 60, we could probably afford that too.

Well the people that are paying the bills are the ones that want to retire some day. If people want to increase the ratio of retirement time to work time then they have to understand they will have to pay or save more while they are working which means accepting a slightly reduced standard of life now to support a longer retirement later. You cant escape that.

Having the age be 65 costs more than having it be 67, that much I don't think is in dispute.

It makes the OAS program cost more yes, but whether increasing the age saves us money in the big picture is definitely disputable. Unless more jobs are created then you'll have a bunch of costs at the other end, and you will have higher unemployment.

Should we pay people to retire earlier, or should we reduce the deficit?

That's a false choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't dispute the generality of age 65 being more expensive than age 67. Of course it costs more.

It makes OAS cost more, but you cant take it for granted that it costs more overall. If 100 thousand seniors stay on the job for an extra two years, that's a 100 thousand other people that aren't entering the workforce for an additional 2 years (unless the economy fully utilized all the available labor and ours doesn't). Those unemployed people will use government services as well and may cost MORE than the $550 OAS maximum. Also, unless workers aged 66 to 67 are as productive as workers closer to their prime then you will hurt overall productivity.

I don't have an opinion one way or another, because as you say we haven't seen all the relevant data. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if we actually SAVED money overall by shoeing these workers into retirement and letting younger workers take their place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes OAS cost more, but you cant take it for granted that it costs more overall. If 100 thousand seniors stay on the job for an extra two years, that's a 100 thousand other people that aren't entering the workforce for an additional 2 years (unless the economy fully utilized all the available labor and ours doesn't).

You keep saying this but have provided no evidence. Can you point to any studies that show increasing retirement age leading to higher youth unemployment?

You may think your statement is inherently self-evident but I don't think it is. People that are working consume more and differently than those that are not. A 66 year old working couple living in the city close to their jobs, commuting daily, getting their morning coffee every day, going out to lunch every day, etc, is very different than a 66 year old retired couple living quietly in some rural setting. For every person going to their job at the office, there are other people employed in driving the buses and trains that provide their commute, in operating lunch restaurants near their place of employment, in building and maintaining the offices where they work, in doing things around the house that they don't have time to do for themselves since they are working, etc.

Anyway, OAS has little to do with when people that are gainfully employed actually retire. If you're healthy and at a meaningful job you're not gonna retire at 65 as opposed to 67 just cause you can collect OAS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep saying this but have provided no evidence. Can you point to any studies that show increasing retirement age leading to higher youth unemployment?

You may think your statement is inherently self-evident but I don't think it is. People that are working consume more and differently than those that are not. A 66 year old working couple living in the city close to their jobs, commuting daily, getting their morning coffee every day, going out to lunch every day, etc, is very different than a 66 year old retired couple living quietly in some rural setting. For every person going to their job at the office, there are other people employed in driving the buses and trains that provide their commute, in operating lunch restaurants near their place of employment, in building and maintaining the offices where they work, in doing things around the house that they don't have time to do for themselves since they are working, etc.

Anyway, OAS has little to do with when people that are gainfully employed actually retire. If you're healthy and at a meaningful job you're not gonna retire at 65 as opposed to 67 just cause you can collect OAS.

You provide evidence. You are the one advocating a change but you cant even explain in common English why it would work, or where the additional employment to utilize this deeper labor pool will come from.

Do you deny that workers retiring opens up positions for other workers? Good luck with that.

People that are working consume more and differently than those that are not.

Why would there be more people working? If you owned a business would you hire more workers because you found out the retirement age was going up? And yes... those workers may consume more than they would have over those two years, but the worker that would have gotten that position had they retired would have consumed less.

Now don't get me wrong... I know that the "lump of labor" model is not a completely accurate reflection of the economy. The amount of jobs in the economy depends on a lot of things, and whether or not positions become available to utilize all this extra labor depends on a lot of things. But it at least needs to be considered.

Also OAS is not in crisis. People are throwing around the fact that some other countries have raised the retirement age (European countries, etc) but those countries ran their programs into the ground with big front-loaded entitlements. We are not in the same position as them.

Anyway, OAS has little to do with when people that are gainfully employed actually retire.

Its one of the incentives that makes retirement more attractive at 65. $550 per month is a considerable amount for lots of people nearing retirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You provide evidence. You are the one advocating a change but you cant even explain in common English why it would work, or where the additional employment to utilize this deeper labor pool will come from.

First, I'm not advocating anything. I'm criticizing a change. The age was already slated to increase to 67, and that was changed.

Do you deny that workers retiring opens up positions for other workers? Good luck with that.
It's completely situational. An experienced older employee at a company retires, the company is lacking his skills and knowledge and doesn't do as well next year, lays people off. It can most certainly go both ways.

Now don't get me wrong... I know that the "lump of labor" model is not a completely accurate reflection of the economy. The amount of jobs in the economy depends on a lot of things, and whether or not positions become available to utilize all this extra labor depends on a lot of things. But it at least needs to be considered.

No, the model that you are putting forth is so simplistic as to not be worth considering, in my opinion. You may not feel like you need to provide evidence to support the idea that raising retirement age raises unemployment rates, but I think this assertion requires evidence. It is a claim that you have made, and you can leave it at that if you want, and maybe some people feel it's inherently obvious, but I do not, so if you want me to consider it you'll have to provide some data.

Also OAS is not in crisis. People are throwing around the fact that some other countries have raised the retirement age (European countries, etc) but those countries ran their programs into the ground with big front-loaded entitlements. We are not in the same position as them.

No, we're not in the same position as others. But we do have a lot of useful things to spend money on, and we are already in a deficit. Go fix some of that infrastructure deficit with that money. How much of society's resources must we constantly funnel from the young to the old? The boomer generation is already the richest and yet we keep funneling all wealth from all other generations to them with every government program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Those most secure in their old age have relied on the market to fund it. That is to say, those with the most wealth and who have worked for most of their lives are the most secure through their CPP and other wealth (e.g., property, RRSP). So who relies on OAS and GIS and will therefore be the most affected by changing the age, which the PBO noted would not provide any significant savings to the government? Those most affected by the OAS changes are people who were either not employed or did not have steady long-term employment through their working age. Perhaps they stayed at home and raised children for the family instead and relied on their spouse to earn money from employment income. Perhaps they are people who have had some kind of disability and could not work consistently. Perhaps they were minorities who faced racial bias when looking for jobs throughout their life. These are the people who rely the most on OAS.

...

WTF?

This is 2016. Anybody born in 1951 has had ample time to save or even learn about a "marriage contract". Heck, RRSPs began in 1957.

=====

1) Some people make consistently bad decisions in life. I really don't know how to help them. (I've tried - but well before they turned 65.)

2) Giving more money to people who make bad decisions sometimes helps - but not at age 65.

3) At age 65 in Canada, if you have a credit card debt, you should not have access to more credit - or the power to borrow money using the name of the federal government.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes OAS cost more, but you cant take it for granted that it costs more overall. If 100 thousand seniors stay on the job for an extra two years, that's a 100 thousand other people that aren't entering the workforce for an additional 2 years (unless the economy fully utilized all the available labor and ours doesn't). Those unemployed people will use government services as well and may cost MORE than the $550 OAS maximum. Also, unless workers aged 66 to 67 are as productive as workers closer to their prime then you will hurt overall productivity.

I don't have an opinion one way or another, because as you say we haven't seen all the relevant data. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if we actually SAVED money overall by shoeing these workers into retirement and letting younger workers take their place.

You can't look at this as a zero sum game. People with more money to spend, especially the low income earners eligible for OAS, will spend it, which creates opportunities for employment. It grows the economy when people are spending.

More importantly, OAS is for the lowest earning seniors. CPP can be drawn at 60 and for folks making more than $72,000/year their OAS is clawed back. It's just not as simple as saying people will stay working until 67. The point I tried to make in the OP is that only certain kinds of seniors will be forced to work still, while others will have the privilege of checking out at 60 with no repercussions. OAS was implemented to help vulnerable seniors and increasing the age directly affects the most vulnerable seniors. It is also these same people who would see their functional health degrade sooner than their more well paid peers. Therefore, the problem isn't one about jobs. The problem is that increasing the age harms those most in need. It serves only to further the class divide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF?

This is 2016. Anybody born in 1951 has had ample time to save or even learn about a "marriage contract". Heck, RRSPs began in 1957.

=====

1) Some people make consistently bad decisions in life. I really don't know how to help them. (I've tried - but well before they turned 65.)

2) Giving more money to people who make bad decisions sometimes helps - but not at age 65.

3) At age 65 in Canada, if you have a credit card debt, you should not have access to more credit - or the power to borrow money using the name of the federal government.

Scenario for you...

A stay at home mother has a husband with a well paying job. She spends her life raising their 4 children and eventually gets a part time job for something to do once they've all entered university. She's now in her 50s with little time to accumulate a CPP or RRSP, but is operating under the premise that her husband has always supported them. He leaves her at 60 for a younger woman and shortly thereafter dies in a car accident.

I guess she just made a bad life decision trusting her husband and raising their family? She should have worked full time instead and built up a pension?

And regardless of your wrongheaded moral aspersions, who's responsibility is this? In the past it would be family that had to support her, but were her contributions not valuable to society by providing a stable home and raising productive children? Does the government not have an institutional obligation to mitigate the valleys created by markets and take up the slack where the markets are blind to domestic labours?

There are countless scenarios where seniors can find themselves earning very little through no fault of their own. OAS has been around in Western democracies since the mid 1800s and in Canada since the early 1900s. That's because most people respect seniors and don't want them living in poverty when market forces don't allow them or their families to provide support. The alternative is forcing elderly people as their health begins to fail them into jobs and working them to death. People generally have more respect for seniors than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since OAS comes out of general revenues guess what else comes out of general revenues....MP's pensions. It would be interesting to see the total of a person's life time on OAS to an MP's life time pension.

Why would that be interesting? Do MP's not deserve a pension for the work they do? And what do employer/employee pension contributions have to do with OAS in this case? Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... She's now in her 50s with little time to accumulate a CPP or RRSP, but is operating under the premise that her husband has always supported them. He leaves her at 60 for a younger woman and shortly thereafter dies in a car accident.

I guess she just made a bad life decision trusting her husband and raising their family? She should have worked full time instead and built up a pension?

....

If she's in her 50s in 2015, she was born around 1965.

Anyone, including a girl, born in Canada in 1965 or later, has had many chances to decide what to do in life.

=====

Was she born outside Canada, in Syria for example?

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeffrey Simpson very clearly demonstrates in this column how Trudeau and the Liberals have chosen to damage Canada's future for short-term political gain in reversing the OAS changes. What happened to making decisions based on facts and evidence as opposed to wishful thinking and fanciful hopes?

The Conservatives reckoned that raising the age for the OAS would save about $11-billion a year. It’s the same rough calculus that West European governments and the U.S. government have made raising the age of receipt of pensions. But not the Trudeau government.

No change, or rather the Liberals' reversal, means that not too many years down the road Ottawa has to find the money somewhere – cut other programs? raise taxes? – to pay the burgeoning OAS bill. Nothing in this week’s budget answered the question raised by the pre-budget change to OAS: Where’s the money to come from?

Some future government will rue the day the Trudeau government reversed the Conservatives’ decision and took Canada out of line with many other Western countries with aging populations.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-how-promises-kept-become-future-problems/article29369820/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

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