Should CPP start at 67?

[Politics1990]

13 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Why, and who is going to pay for those programs after 'retiring' at that early of an age?

 

make cuts to useless stuff like foreign aid.. raise taxes on  rich . its time we take care of canadians. raising it to 67 while mps get pension at 55? is laughable and any pm  or mp that votes for that deserves to be followed and harassed  tell they in the grave lol

Edited September 30, 2025 by Politics1990

[LinkSoul60]

14 minutes ago, Politics1990 said:

 

make cuts to useless stuff like foreign aid.. raise taxes on  rich . its time we take care of canadians. raising it to 67 while mps get pension at 55? is laughable and any pm  or mp that votes for that deserves to be followed and harassed  tell they in the grave lol

Debatable these days, but I think most would say providing basic nutrition , infectious disease prevention, health care infrastructure, etc, etc to impoverished countries isn't useless foreign aid.  Wealthier Canadian's already pay higher taxes.  I don't see the logic of the wealthier paying more income tax so lower incomes can return earlier and receive those full benefits. The fact MP's get a reduced pension at 55 versus 60 for the masses isn't the case for lowering the retirement age. Probably more of a 'why do they get this benefit' conversation.

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Yes we do.  Specifically in trades, healthcare, agriculture, and transportation....not student jobs at Tim Hortons.

Leave agriculture out of this. And very, very few are coming in for healthcare jobs other than the very lowest, most unskilled ones. Hardly any are coming in for trades either. The vast bulk are restaurant/hotel/retail workers. 

And to quote economist Don Wright:

“But when businesses complain about having difficulty finding enough workers, what this really means is that they cannot easily find the workers they want at a wage they want to pay,” Wright says.

“But, within reasonable limits, this is a good thing. It forces employers to pay higher wages, provides better working conditions and drives the creative destruction that leads to higher productivity, more valuable products and better business models.”

 

2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Our economy is slow.  Student/younger people are the first to be affected with a slow down of hiring.

Maybe foreign workers should be the first to be affected instead.

2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

If you mean CPP for no income/low newcomers to Canada they have no impact.  You only get from CPP what you paid into it.  If you never worked you get nothing.  If you've contributed little you get little.  

Low/no income newcomers are a drain on social services for the entirety of their time here. And they can collect OAS and GIC after ten years here.

[I am Groot]

This is for the WE NEED TO BRING IN MILLIONS OF IMMIGRANTS BECAUSE OF AN AGING POPULATION crowd.

There has been essentially no revision of the terms of the senior promise since it was established 50-60 years ago, and the result is that the only way it can be fulfilled is if each generation is significantly higher – not just the same size – as the generation preceding it. R&M showed that required an increase in population by 4.25 times over fifty years. But that more than quadrupling would have to continue every fifty years – by 2117, Canada’s population would need to be in the neighbourhood of 665 million

https://donwright.substack.com/p/the-bogus-idea-that-will-not-die

In 2006, the C.D. Howe Institute published a study called “No elixir of youth: immigration cannot keep Canada young.” It concluded that immigration could do little to alleviate the likely consequences of aging on Canada’s age structure and government finances. In order to maintain the current dependency ratio, Canada would have to vastly increase immigration and by 2050 would be taking in 7 million immigrants per year and our population would be 65 million.

https://dominionreview.ca/the-lie-that-wont-die-immigration-is-the-solution-for-canadas-aging-population/

[LinkSoul60]

5 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Leave agriculture out of this. And very, very few are coming in for healthcare jobs other than the very lowest, most unskilled ones. Hardly any are coming in for trades either. The vast bulk are restaurant/hotel/retail workers.

Can't leave agriculture out of this. Ian Patton Delta BC conservative MP is a champion for TFW's that is critical to Delta's agriculture industry, as with the sector.  We have trade shortages and programs are available to new immigrants as they are to naturalized citizens.

9 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Maybe foreign workers should be the first to be affected instead.

So forget about performance, seniority and basic labour laws to say when things get slower immigrants lose their jobs first?  

11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Low/no income newcomers are a drain on social services for the entirety of their time here. And they can collect OAS and GIC after ten years here.

I agree with that as it relates to OAS and believe that will change to higher age at some point.  Remember that some of those lower/no income immigrants are generally supported by a family member who is paying taxes and benefits.  No different than Deluges idea of women staying at home cooking and cleaning while the man works.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Politics1990 said:

it should be 60 or 55 to be honest.   anywone raising it to 67 is a instant no vote

Well obviously it shouldn't.  While 'free money' is always a nice idea you can't just give away cash you don't colllect.  And we don't collect anywhere near enough to pay for that. 

So WHY should it be 55? People are quite capable of working till their 70 for the most part. The point of it was to reduce poverty in the elderly who can't earn money any more,  how is 55 "elderly'?

Typical communist mentality. As long as it seems like it's coming from the government it must be free!! 

I mean if that's your logic why not make it 20? Why should people over 20 have to work?

 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

No, we do not. In fact, we have a high and rising unemployment rate, especially among youths.

There are help wanted signs everywhere you look where I live. Move to where the work is.

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

You think young people not being able to get secure jobs at a decent salary and not able to afford housing might have something to do with that?

It's been declining like this for decades. Remember when affluence used to be the excuse?

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Nonsense. Poor people are a loss to the taxpayers, not paying more than a fraction of what they use in government services.

Like I said, tax the rich.

 

[Nefarious Banana]

There was a time when a person could get their CP at age 60 and continue to work.  They would lose 6% per year  for each year CP was taken early, for a total 30% loss.  But, at that time, payments deducted from your work paycheck ceased.  In essence, you gained back about 20%  . . . . it became a 'bird in the hand . . . ' situation.  Another drawback was that CP payments were applied to your work income for a higher gross income.

The thing is . . . none of us know if we'll be walking down the street tomorrow or ??

Stephen Harper put an end to the early CP payments while continuing to work without continuing to contribute to the CP plan.

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There are help wanted signs everywhere you look where I live. Move to where the work is.

 

There is no work. The people in your area are probably just too lazy to take down their help wanted signs, just based on our experience with you  

 

Quote

It's been declining like this for decades. Remember when affluence used to be the excuse?

No   LOLOL 

It declines to the degree with which we increase taxes and reduce our economic output. The biggest single driver happened in the late 60's and 70's when due to changes in public policy you now needed two incomes to really get by in this country.  That change took time to settle in but that's what started it  (along with better access to birth control) Increased costs of living due to taxes made it worse and it has again nosedived under your buddy trudeau. 

 

Quote

Like I said, tax the rich.

That's how we got in this mess in the first place. " My house may be burning down but if i can just get another fire lit it'll solve everything!!! "    Sigh. 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

There was a time when a person could get their CP at age 60 and continue to work.  They would lose 6% per year  for each year CP was taken early, for a total 30% loss.  But, at that time, payments deducted from your work paycheck ceased.  In essence, you gained back about 20%  . . . . it became a 'bird in the hand . . . ' situation.  Another drawback was that CP payments were applied to your work income for a higher gross income.

The thing is . . . none of us know if we'll be walking down the street tomorrow or ??

Stephen Harper put an end to the early CP payments while continuing to work without continuing to contribute to the CP plan.

The problem he identified was that the day was quickly coming where we just couldn't afford it. And with the 'boomer bubble' it would put an insane strain on young people who would have to bear the costs of that. It would drive cost of living for young people higher and increase taxes while reducing benefits if they tried to keep the status quo for too long.  So he proposed changes 'over time' to give people a chance to adapt and make it fair. 

And he was correct. And that's where we are now.  100 billion dollar deficits and we STILL can't afford to pay it and young people can barely afford food never mind buying a house. 

[Legato]

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Like I said, tax the rich.

 

Which has never worked anywhere.

Tax the rich and they leave. 

Guess where they go. Something to do with a citrus bowl.

 

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The problem he identified was that the day was quickly coming where we just couldn't afford it.

There were all sorts of inherently unsustainable things that would lead to affordability issues being identified in the economy and especially in the natural world that fuels our economy decades before Harper showed up.

Harper just finally noticed is all.

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And he was correct. And that's where we are now.  100 billion dollar deficits and we STILL can't afford to pay it and young people can barely afford food never mind buying a house. 

It's sad that people still have to point out and explain why this is a global issue happening all over the world, especially.

And the solution is more babies...

LMAO!

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, Legato said:

Which has never worked anywhere.

Because it's never been done everywhere.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There were all sorts of inherently unsustainable things that would lead to affordability issues being identified in the economy and especially in the natural world that fuels our economy decades before Harper showed up.

Yes, that's why he decided to fix it    

Quote

Harper just finally noticed is all.

Everyone noticed, harper had the balls to try to fix it.  The libs undid those fixes and made the problem worse and now we're back in the same fix  

Quote

It's sad that people still have to point out and explain why this is a global issue happening all over the world, especially.

IT's sad that you still feel the need to lie about it.  This is a canada problem. But of course you can't have anyone criticizing your buddies the libs   

 

Quote

And the solution is more babies...

Thanks to the libs, nobody can afford babies.   I hear we're down to 1.2 births per female. 

Quote

LMAO!

LOL i accept your traditional announcement of defeat  

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Because it's never been done everywhere.

Sure it has. It failed and always will.  But no matter how many times it's done and fails leftists will always claim it's never been done   

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure it has. It failed and always will.

No there's never been a global revenue agency, rich people would have nowhere to go except off planet if there was.

You people are truly clueless as to just what our world's real problems are never mind how enormous they've become.

And now in addition to having more babies the solution includes doubling down on nationalism. Sure that'll work.

While the rich become more powerful than nations and are burrowing into the planet and building bunkers for themselves. As a hedge against moving into space I guess.

 

[Politics1990]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Well obviously it shouldn't.  While 'free money' is always a nice idea you can't just give away cash you don't colllect.  And we don't collect anywhere near enough to pay for that. 

So WHY should it be 55? People are quite capable of working till their 70 for the most part. The point of it was to reduce poverty in the elderly who can't earn money any more,  how is 55 "elderly'?

Typical communist mentality. As long as it seems like it's coming from the government it must be free!! 

I mean if that's your logic why not make it 20? Why should people over 20 have to work?

 

don't be stupid the 20 remark is beyond dumb and nothing wrong with 55-60 .. working someone in constrution to 70 is insane an bs lol. with all the money this  govenment wastes no reason why  they couldnt let people go at 60. and enjoy  what time they got left..  not that retirement is even possible at 65 atm with grocery prices anyway for  alot of people. my dad had to work tell 68 and only retired because his wife of 42 years passed away and he finally decided   it was enough.

Edited September 30, 2025 by Politics1990

[herbie]

Look - the simple thought that reducing senior's benefits to cure the country's financial situation is insane.
When coming from people deeply opposed to taxing the wealthy, even more insane.

No one makes you retire, no one makes you collect your CPP/OAS and if you claim it and continue to work, it gets clawed back. YOU paid into it, so it's your money to claim.

And I will repeat how it seems so popular an idea to f*ck over someone else and pretend it somehow benefits you.

Do you think anyone at all over 60 supports raising the age of eligibility?

[TreeBeard]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

And pay everybody CPP and OAS for 30-40 years?

Of course.  Cutting them off would be rather silly.  

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

Of course.  Cutting them off would be rather silly.  

With whose money?

Yet another left you can think that there's a magical money theory and that wealth comes from nothing

29 minutes ago, herbie said:

Look - the simple thought that reducing senior's benefits to cure the country's financial situation is insane.
When coming from people deeply opposed to taxing the wealthy, even more insane.

No one makes you retire, no one makes you collect your CPP/OAS and if you claim it and continue to work, it gets clawed back. YOU paid into it, so it's your money to claim.

And I will repeat how it seems so popular an idea to f*ck over someone else and pretend it somehow benefits you.

Do you think anyone at all over 60 supports raising the age of eligibility?

It's not your money to claim. That's the problem.

If you want that then the program should be canceled entirely and you should put your own money into your own bank account. Then it's your money to claim.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Because it's never been done everywhere.

Everywhere it's been tried it didn't work.

[eyeball]

32 minutes ago, Legato said:

Everywhere it's been tried it didn't work.

How would you know without a Global Revenue Agency?

That's never been tried, ever...anywhere.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

How would you know without a Global Revenue Agency?

That's never been tried, ever...anywhere.

Goalposts.

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, Legato said:

Goalposts.

Yes, go put it back.

[Legato]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes, go put it back.

Then stop moving them. They don't work on a cricket pitch.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Politics1990 said:

don't be stupid the 20 remark is beyond dumb

The 55 remark was beyond dumb.  Dumb seems to be your wheel house.

Quote

and nothing wrong with 55-60 ..

There is exactly the same thing wrong with it as 20. 

Quote

working someone in constrution to 70 is insane an bs lol.

bullshit. By that time they should be a supervisor. Or more likely a teacher or instructor.  How many people are 'construction workers' at 65. 

And nobody is "working them",  they work to earn money. 

Quote

with all the money this  govenment wastes no reason why  they couldnt let people go at 60.

Sure there is - there are several:

1 - the gov't is borrowing the money to waste and we can't afford that anymore.  We're at 100 billion a year and we're going to wind up crashing the economy. So where are you going to find 100 billion a year AND enough to pay for this in 'savings'?

2 - starting earlier means paying a LOT more people, life expectancy rates and such would mean you're basically paying out double the number of people  on average than you would be if you started at 65, where mortality rates start to substantially incrase, We can't afford that. 

3 - Because of the extra time even if it WAS the same number of people the gov't budget for OAS alone, which is unfunded,  would go from 80 billion to about 150 billion .  Where you gonna come up with that extra money?  CPP is currently funded but wouldn't be if you started the pay outs earlier so you'd be looking for about an additional 100 bilion there as well.  AND AT THE SAME TIME, you're taking a huge number of taxpayers out of the eqauasion

 4 - you're literally slashing the labour pool, and not just in general but by the top most experienced people. People that cannot be replaced easily. Which means less productivity AND ALSO they're the top earners so you're throwing out hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue. 

 

Quote

and enjoy  what time they got left..  not that retirement is even possible at 65 atm with grocery prices anyway for  alot of people

Why not start them at 20 so they can enjoy the time they have left?  Why don't ALL people have the right to enjoy the time they have left? Not that it's possible for even working people to live at 20 atm with grocery prices anyway for a lot of people,  thanks to liberal and left wing stupidity which blew all our money that you'd like to double down on

Quote

. my dad had to work tell 68 and only retired because his wife of 42 years passed away and he finally decided   it was enough.

And? too bad he didn't pass his work ethic on to you. 

 

What you're suggesting is stupid. And you obviously didn't put a single second of thought into it. As things are we can't afford to continue to pay out the way we have. We can't afford a lot of things any more and we're going to have to cut a lot AND reverse the stupid policies that got us here, and you want to throw in another policy that we can't afford and is stupider than most.

If you want to retire at 55 save your own money and do it yourself.  Retirement in this day and age from a gov't benefits point of view should be 67, it's not there to provide people a liesurly life, it's there to make sure elderly don't starve once they're past their working years.