CPP/OAP vs US Social Security

[User]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Also the OAS portion is equitable because everyone gets the same entitlement regardless of income or work history. 

Your notion of "equitable" is skewed here as it only looks at the outcome, not the cost. This is typically the glaring problem with most leftist views on what constitutes "equity."

 

[BeaverFever]

5 hours ago, User said:

Your notion of "equitable" is skewed here as it only looks at the outcome, not the cost. This is typically the glaring problem with most leftist views on what constitutes "equity."

 

I presume your whining is about the fact that some people pay more taxes than others therefore you believe that they should receive more of every single public service and benefit imaginable. Not everything is life is or can be measured that way down to the smallest bean. 

The benefit is widely described as equitable. Stop trying to politicize everything. 

[User]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

I presume your whining is about the fact that some people pay more taxes than others therefore you believe that they should receive more of every single public service and benefit imaginable. Not everything is life is or can be measured that way down to the smallest bean. 

The benefit is widely described as equitable. Stop trying to politicize everything. 

I see you are crying about my comment on your absurd take on equity. 

No, I made no argument about what should or should not be done. I merely pointed out that your notion of what is equitable only considers the outcomes, not the contributions. 

 

[BeaverFever]

13 minutes ago, User said:

I see you are crying about my comment on your absurd take on equity. 

No, I made no argument about what should or should not be done. I merely pointed out that your notion of what is equitable only considers the outcomes, not the contributions. 

 

It’s not my personal notion, it’s how the OAS program is widely seen and described by most people  who are not right wing ideologues so there’s nothing “absurd” about it. Also nobody makes contributions directly to OAS so you can’t really measure or compare peoples’ “contributions” to that program specifically without considering what other federally funded services their taxes might have funded or consumed over their lifetime.
 

At any rate even rich people benefit from the fact that there is not widespread poverty and desperation. Young people don’t directly benefit from programs for seniors, seniors don’t directly benefit from programs for youth, childless adults don’t directly benefit from programs for children, services industry doesn’t directly benefit from investments in aerospace research and so on.  But that doesn’t make it all communism. All of these things happening together benefiting different sectors of society and the economy is what makes the big picture work. 

Edited October 14, 2024 by BeaverFever

[User]

17 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s not my personal notion

You said:

"Also the OAS portion is equitable because everyone gets the same entitlement regardless of income or work history."

Why do you try to deny the obvious?

17 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Also nobody makes contributions directly to OAS so you can’t really measure or compare peoples’ “contributions” to that program specifically without considering what other federally funded services their taxes might have funded or consumed over their lifetime.

Of course, you can measure what people contribute. Clearly, someone poor who contributed nothing and has been a net drain on the government as compared to an upper-middle-class person who has been taxed to the hilt their whole lives.

There is nothing "equitable" about what those two have done in contributing. 

 

[CdnFox]

On 10/14/2024 at 3:00 AM, BeaverFever said:

Canadian CPP and OAS combined currently provide a maximum benefit of approx $26,388 CAD and average of $17,412 CAD, whereas Us Social Security provides a max of $43,524 USD and average of $21,600 USD.

 

But you'd also have to take into account the other benefits.  Our 'retirement' income comes with medical included.  I don't believe there's medical included for the us, and if there is some form of medicare it'll be a lot less than what canada has. 

And it's much easier to hit the max for cpp. 

At a glance (rather than a deep dive) it would appear that for most working people the difference is pretty minimal BEFORE the medical issue and that puts it way over the top for canada. 

[BeaverFever]

8 hours ago, User said:

Also the OAS portion is equitable because everyone gets the same entitlement regardless of income or work history."

Why do you try to deny the obvious?

*sigh* FFS its not JUST my personal opinion thats how the program is generally described by Canadians not just me. Do you understand? Do you right wing trolls really have to hijack and politicize EVERY SINGLE conversation for your partisan attacks? Like even someone’s question about pensions is not too mundane for your trolling?

 

8 hours ago, User said:

Of course, you can measure what people contribute. Clearly, someone poor who contributed nothing and has been a net drain on the government as compared to an upper-middle-class person who has been taxed to the hilt their whole lives.

There is nothing "equitable" about what those two have done in contributing. 

You can’t measure how much they paid to OAS, how much for the coast guard, how much for the post office etc. All you say is they paid more in taxes generally speaking. . 

But most citizens even upper/middle class ones receive more in public services than they pay in taxes. That’s the whole point of public services.

 

I get it. In YOUR personal opinion no publicly funded service should be called equitable because some people pay more taxes than others. That’s not the lone or even prevailing interpretation of the word equitable. 

[BeaverFever]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But you'd also have to take into account the other benefits.  Our 'retirement' income comes with medical included.  I don't believe there's medical included for the us, and if there is some form of medicare it'll be a lot less than what canada has. 

And it's much easier to hit the max for cpp. 

At a glance (rather than a deep dive) it would appear that for most working people the difference is pretty minimal BEFORE the medical issue and that puts it way over the top for canada. 

Yeah we get healthcare for life while Americans 65 and over do have a medicare program, only Medicare Part A (basic hospitalization coverage) is “free” and there are limits to the services covered and the amount covered. If they want more coverage than that under Medicare then they have to pay premiums ir obtain private insurance. 

Edited October 15, 2024 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Yeah we get healthcare for life while Americans 65 and over do have a medicare program, only Medicare Part A (basic hospitalization coverage) is “free” and there are limits to the services covered and the amount covered. If they want more coverage than that under Medicare then they have to pay premiums ir obtain private insurance. 

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. You have to think of the whole package and the value of it if you're doing a comparison. But that makes it really actually quite challenging to do a true Apples to Apples examination.

But without drilling down to the nickels and pennies, are quick and dirty eyeball what I understand the two packages to be suggest to me that they're actually not really that radically different. I mean you might be able to massage the numbers to make either one look slightly better than the other under the right circumstances but after all factors are considered while i'm sure one will be higher than the other a little i don't know that its a substantial difference. 

[August1991]

On 10/14/2024 at 6:00 AM, BeaverFever said:

Canadian CPP and OAS combined currently provide a maximum benefit of approx $26,388 CAD and average of $17,412 CAD, whereas Us Social Security provides a max of $43,524 USD and average of $21,600 USD. So one doesn’t need to do any currency conversion to see that the American system provides a higher benefit although the averages are closer.

...

BeaverFever,

Thank you. You made my point.

[August1991]

On 10/14/2024 at 5:17 PM, BeaverFever said:

...

At any rate even rich people benefit from the fact that there is not widespread poverty and desperation. Young people don’t directly benefit from programs for seniors..

....

Dead wrong.

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, August1991 said:

BeaverFever,

Thank you. You made my point.

 

10 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Dead wrong.

LOL - awww beve, you were so close....    

[August1991]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

LOL - awww beve, you were so close....    

Please understand two points:

1. The US pension system is more generous than our RRQ/OAS.

2. Our RRQ/Norwegian system is based on US paper.

[August1991]

Norway is a country of 6 million, like Quebec.

Norway has a sovereign fund of about US 2 trillion dollars.

Quebec has a sovereign fund (la Caisse) with about US 500 billion.

====

These funds are claims, (paper) IOUs, on real resources.

Are Norwegians really rich?

Edited October 26, 2024 by August1991

[BeaverFever]

On 10/25/2024 at 9:28 PM, August1991 said:

Dead wrong.

What’s dead wrong exactly?

[August1991]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

What’s dead wrong exactly?

Life is a process.

Successful societies ensure that young care for old as an incentive.

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, August1991 said:

Life is a process.

Successful societies ensure that young care for old as an incentive.

So?  I didn’t say anything that contradicted that. 

[August1991]

The US Social Security is not sustainable.

It is pay-as-you-go: a Ponzi scheme, immigrants/younger people pay for older.

=====

In Quebec and Norway, we have a balast.