.

[Smallc]

Exactly. In six months their estimated deficit has gone from 10B to 30B and now, according to you, 20B. If that isn't flying by the seat of their pants I'm not sure what would be.

No one can predict the economy, especially not at this moment.

[Wilber]

No one can predict the economy, especially not at this moment.

Ah, that must be it. Tell you what, I'd like to be generous and just chalk it up to inexperience but unfortunately they were less than honest about their spending during the election. They sold a deficit on building infrastructure but less but than 20% of their deficit over the next two years will be going to infrastructure spending.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Wilber

[Smallc]

Ah, that must be it. Tell you what, I'd like to be generous and just chalk it up to inexperience but unfortunately they were less than honest about their spending during the election.

It's clear that everyone was being dishonest, as given the current numbers, anyone would have had a deficit.

They sold a deficit on building infrastructure but less but than 20% of their deficit over the next two years will be going to infrastructure spending.

Of course, since about $17B of that deficit was before any of their spending, you're being completely dishonest.

[Wilber]

I don't think I am the one being dishonest. If "no one can predict the economy, especially at this moment" why are you telling me the deficit will be less than the latest estimate?

[Smallc]

I can't predict what it will actually be. I can only go by the numbers, the budget projections, and the fact that there's a $6B contingency.

[eyeball]

Exactly. In six months their estimated deficit has gone from 10B to 30B and now, according to you, 20B. If that isn't flying by the seat of their pants I'm not sure what would be.

So, given the NDP and Conservatives were a lot closer in their positions than the Liberals...how the hell did the NDP come to occupy the center?

Sounds like everyone was out to lunch last election including voters.

[cybercoma]

Trudeau's deb is not SMALL.

You keep saying this, but the fact remains that it's one of the smallest debt to GDP ratios in the OECD. It's a little tough to square your opinion that the deficit is not small with that fact.

[cybercoma]

Of course, since about $17B of that deficit was before any of their spending, you're being completely dishonest.

I love how this constantly gets ignored. Not a single Conservative on this site has acknowledged this and some are so delusional,that they believe Trudeau was given a surplus.

[Wilber]

It's clear that everyone was being dishonest, as given the current numbers, anyone would have had a deficit.Of course, since about $17B of that deficit was before any of their spending, you're being completely dishonest.

What 17 B and if they were already that far in the hole to begin with, why is most of their borrowing going into entitlements they don't have the revenues to support?

[Topaz]

Would you all not agree if ALL tax payers paid their fair share, the country would be in a better financially state? Now we know and many of us already knew , the rich and certain corps. are the ones that cheat and maybe these people should lose their citizenship for cheating on their taxes. This country is very good to them, and if they would pay, many lower or middle incomers would also have a better life, but do they care?

[Argus]

I'm betting you pulled that out of nowhere.

They clearly are emulating the Ontario Liberals, and went the same route of exaggerating the existing deficit and convince people that it wasn't their fault, but that of the previous government. That leaves them free to spend at least up to their currently announced deficit while blaming it on the Tories and circumstances. Given the tone and style of this government and it's leader, and given it still has to find billions for home care, Bombardier, and other things, I have no doubt they will spend every dollar.

[Shady]

Justin's drop of OAS from 67 is reckless and irresponsible, and denies medical science and demographic trends. The population is getting older and living much longer than when OAS was created. It's only logical to index it at least partially to life expectancy. His actions are going to produce enormous costs for Canada, especially 5, 10. 15 years down the road. But another PM will have to deal with that mess and be made to look cold and heartless. So the Justin can continue to be Santa Claus, making no difficult decisions that are necessary but unpopular, so that he can continue to be the most popular kid in school. He's a complete joke.

[waldo]

Justin's drop of OAS from 67 is reckless and irresponsible, and denies medical science and demographic trends. The population is getting older and living much longer than when OAS was created. It's only logical to index it at least partially to life expectancy. His actions are going to produce enormous costs for Canada, especially 5, 10. 15 years down the road. But another PM will have to deal with that mess and be made to look cold and heartless. So the Justin can continue to be Santa Claus, making no difficult decisions that are necessary but unpopular, so that he can continue to be the most popular kid in school. He's a complete joke.

in regards that 2 year, 65 versus 67, age distinction on eligibility: (note: the proposed change would have "kicked in" in 2023... so please adjust your "enormity" range accordingly) .

- citation request relative to your statement declaring, "enormous costs for Canada, especially 5, 10, 15 years down the road".

- citation request in regards the implied, "enormous savings for Canada", Harper Conservatives projected in regards the proposed increase to 67.

recent related updates from the Parliamentary Budget Office:

- the cost of maintaining the current OAS @65 years of age would shrink “very quickly” after 2030 as the demographic impact of the baby-boom generation fades

- per PBO forecast, the shift reversal back to 65 will cost the federal government $11.2-billion in the first full year of implementation (2023), or 0.35 per cent of gross domestic product.

- the PBO maintains that under either scenario, 65 or 67, government finances are sustainable over the long term.

- at 67, federal debt as a percentage of GDP is scheduled to be eliminated by 2057-58. At 65, federal debt would be eliminated by 2064-65, 7 years later.

.

[Argus]

- the PBO maintains that under either scenario, 65 or 67, government finances are sustainable over the long term.

- at 67, federal debt as a percentage of GDP is scheduled to be eliminated by 2057-58. At 65, federal debt would be eliminated by 2064-65, 7 years later.

.

Lowering the eligibility age by itself is not a huge deal. But lowering it in conjunction with increased demands on the federal budget from higher program spending on social services, including higher spending on natives, higher spending on health care, and higher spending on servicing a larger debt is going to present big problems for this country.

federal debt as a percentage of GDP is scheduled to be eliminated by 2057-58. At 65, federal debt would be eliminated by 2064-65, 7 years later.

A meaningless, empty promise which ignores all the things which can happen between now and then, including the recessions and further borrowing by government which are certain to take place.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

A meaningless, empty promise which ignores all the things which can happen between now and then, including the recessions and further borrowing by government which are certain to take place.

It's not a promise, but a result of the PBO analysis of current trends. A $30B deficit this year (it won't be) has done nothin to change current trends.

[eyeball]

In light of the Panama Papers they post a 60 billion dollar deficit for all I care.

[Argus]

It's not a promise, but a result of the PBO analysis of current trends. A $30B deficit this year (it won't be) has done nothin to change current trends.

It's a ridiculous analyses given the total uncertainty of what is going to happen over the next 50 years. What happens if interest rates shoot up to 10%? What happens if spendthrift government proves so popular we get more of the same? How many recessions are we going to experience during that time? There is no "trend" except that we haven't paid a dime off in years and aren't about to start any time soon.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

There is no "trend" except that we haven't paid a dime off in years and aren't about to start any time soon.

That has (almost) nothing to do with debt to GDP.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Smallc

[nerve]

This ain't anything anyone should touch with a 10 foot poll but I will say that these supplements should be based on health factors. I find it odd that mandatory retirement age for government positions such as the supreme court and senate is 75 while everyone else is assumed to have retired at 65, when in fact some people retire earlier and some never work.

It would be much better to just give everyone the same rights if they are medically unable to work whether 22 or 88.

What I found is that people are basically making the same off of the OAS and CPP benefit it they were low middle income or worse for their life.

Social services really needs to be centralized though to reduce program duplications at the municipal, provincial and federal levels.

The programs are stupid. They are there to reward people with higher incomes while people with lower incomes basically get the same deal no matter what. The programs are agist if they arn't based on medical grounds.

We have gene therapy and people living to 100 these days. The culture behind these programs is based on faulty logic but solid tradition. It would be much worse just to get a good program for everyone whether for medical purposes or a good employment program for those who don't have medical reasons not to work.

I realize it is a culture of fulfillment and this is living money for people who didn't have enough to save for an extended retirement.

You know if you are going to have social programs you may as well just remove all the administration and just pay out to everyone a basic living wage. All these programs admiinstrations and legal matters is just adding complexity to a multilayers pubic safety net.

It is just being cost upgraded through making it more complex OAS, CPP, welfare, disability etc.. It is being done to keep it culturally different, when in fact it is the exact same fecal stuff.

Edited April 24, 2016 by nerve

[Big Guy]

Absent of a guaranteed minimum wage, I still believe that CPP and other old age payments should have a means test. Lets start with those having an income of over $200,000 a year not receiving any CPP payments. Use the funds saved for early retirees.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Big Guy

[msj]

CPP does not need to be means tested since people pay into it and it is a self sustaining fund.

I max out over my lifetime (for example, I make $53,600 or more in 2015 and, therefore, pay $2480 in premiums - actually $4960 since I'm self employed so pay both portions ).

By paying this $5,000 per year over 30-40 years I will get to earn about $12,000 per year for about 20-25 years assuming I live to 85-90 years of age.

A poor investment return but one I am willing to tolerate given how the tax system is now integrated (that is, there was a time it made sense for me to draw dividends from my corporation and the total savings for income taxes/CPP premiums made it worthwhile - that has not been the case since at least 2011).

Of course, I will also pay tax on this CPP so after paying in $150,000+ to get $240,000 in CPP benefits I will probably pay $35,000+ in income taxes on it.

IOW, CPP is not this great cost that people think it is. It is self sustaining already even without consideration of the income tax recovery that governments receive.

I can understand people's concern over the OAS/GIS since those are funded from general tax revenues.

CPP is NOT funded from general revenues so it is unneccessary to link it to a means test.

The point is very simple: CPP is paid into a separate and self sustaining fund.

OAS/GIS is not.

[msj]

OAS is subject to a clawback of 15 cents on the dollar when net income exceeds about $73,000.

The issue is that pension splitting allows people to split certain pension income to prevent OAS clawback

For example, a guy who earns a pension of $110,000 plus OAS and CPP (his wife shares his CPP and also earns OAS) gets to share $55,000 of his pension to her.

This prevents OAS clawback which means he gets to keep his $6,700 of OAS and gets to save some income taxes too.

In all, he saves about $10,000 in income taxes/clawback.

I don't mind the tax savings but I disagree with the clawback.

If the government moved the split pension deduction to occur after line 236 on the tax form then clawback would still be calculated while income tax savings would be preserved.

This would help keep OAS sustainable for 65 year olds rather than 67 year olds ( other tax measures would still be needed as I have mentioned in posts earlier in this thread).

[Argus]

That has (almost) nothing to do with debt to GDP.

Seriously? You think borrowing money every year instead of paying it off has nothing to do with the amount of debt?

[Smallc]

Seriously? You think borrowing money every year instead of paying it off has nothing to do with the amount of debt?

You could borrow money every year onto infinity, and have and have the debt to GDP reach a number that makes it basically zero.

[Argus]

You could borrow money every year onto infinity, and have and have the debt to GDP reach a number that makes it basically zero.

You are assuming that GDP rises faster than the debt, and that's not going to happen if we keep borrowing and interest rates return to normal.