Seniors and Entitlement

[Renegade]

My question is how many of you could take your parents into your home or pay for them in a nursing home. Remember no OAP.

I would if my parents were destitute. Would your kids not do the same for you?

Even though there is no OAS there is still welfare. As I've said OAS is not any different in concept than welfare.

Why would the general taxpayer have more of an obligation to support you in your time of need than your family and friends?

[margrace]

My question is how many of you could take your parents into your home or pay for them in a nursing home. Remember no OAP.

I would if my parents were destitute. Would your kids not do the same for you?

Even though there is no OAS there is still welfare. As I've said OAS is not any different in concept than welfare.

Why would the general taxpayer have more of an obligation to support you in your time of need than your family and friends?

Will your kids support you???

[Renegade]

Will your kids support you???

I have no idea. I can't speak for them. I don't plan or expect to be in a situation where I need their finanical support.

BTW, Even though I was curtious enough to answer your question, you didn't answer mine. Please do so.

[margrace]

Oh yes my kids would support me but only two would be in a position to do so.

It is great that people can save for there old age but a lot of us never made that kind of money. I worked for the municipality but governed by a board, the people on the board did not think we were entitled to a pension because we were paid by the municipalities. I had to fight for myself and my staff to even get pay equity, we were working for near minimum wage.

[margrace]

And I my son supplied a home for his mother in law for years. She never paid board or anything like that her OAP was hers alone.

[Renegade]

And I my son supplied a home for his mother in law for years. She never paid board or anything like that her OAP was hers alone.

Precisely proves my point. The taxpayer is basicly funding a welfare scheme for a senior who is getting full room and board.

[Renegade]

Oh yes my kids would support me but only two would be in a position to do so.

Then IMV, they are the ones who have more of an obligation to support you than the taxpayer.

It is great that people can save for there old age but a lot of us never made that kind of money. I worked for the municipality but governed by a board, the people on the board did not think we were entitled to a pension because we were paid by the municipalities. I had to fight for myself and my staff to even get pay equity, we were working for near minimum wage.

I'm sorry you didn't earn enough, however, old age is an entirely predictable event. I can understand that there may be a few lean years, but people have about 45 years of productivity over their lifetime where they can save for their retirement. If a pension plan is not provided by one's employer, one either needs to supply their own savings vehicle (eg RRSP), or find more lucrative employment.

You still didn't address my question as to why you would think the taxpayer has more of an obligation to support you vs your kids. I'd appreciate a repsonse.

[margrace]

I paid into OAP most of my life, my husband died and I had 4 small children to support. I worked the rest of my life for near minimum wage and did without all my life. I managed to save a few dollar in RSPs to cover my funeral. One of the things I supported in my taxes was school tax. Isn't that a welfare item as well. Where did you get your education. I supported good roads, do you drive on them.

[Renegade]

I paid into OAP most of my life, my husband died and I had 4 small children to support.

That is a misnomer. You don't pay into OAS any more than you pay into welfare, you simply pay taxes. If you were on minimium wage I suspect the taxes you paid were very little.

I worked the rest of my life for near minimum wage and did without all my life. I managed to save a few dollar in RSPs to cover my funeral.

If you worked at a salary above minimium wage prior to your husband's death, why did more of that not go toward retirement savings when you had two family incomes? Am I missing something?

One of the things I supported in my taxes was school tax. Isn't that a welfare item as well.

It is a kind of welfare if you simply get the benefit but don't pay the cost. So did your kids attend the schools paid for by your school taxes?

Where did you get your education.

Yep, I went to public school, and yep, my parents paid substantial school taxes to support those schools.

I supported good roads, do you drive on them.

I sure do, and I pay way more than my share, for the privlidge of driving on them. I may even be paying for the roads you use.

[margrace]

I guess you are missing something here. I was a stay at home parent when my husband died and had never worked. I also only had part of my high school so I wasn't qualified to much of a job. I had no home of my own since we lived in half his parents home and my children and I were not very welcome after he died. Back in 1964 not too many women did work out of the home. There was plenty to do there raising a family.

So am I missing something here, do you believe that all seniors not able to save enough to work on should be put on welfare and just what is your reason. Does it make you feel better to look down on us. Because that is what happens to people on welfare. I know I regularly work in our local food bank, I see how awful it is for these people.

[Renegade]

I guess you are missing something here. I was a stay at home parent when my husband died and had never worked.

There is a reason many people today have both parents working. It is to afford to have kids, a decent life, and save for their retirement. So if I understand your correctly, despite haivng a low family income you and your husband decided to have four kids, and only one income? I would also suspect that you did not get life insurance coverage on your husband? Somewhat poor financial planning, wouldn't you agree?

I also only had part of my high school so I wasn't qualified to much of a job.

Isn't it your responsibilty to get an education or trade so that you are employable at a good wage? If you didn't finish high-school, who's fault is that?

I had no home of my own since we lived in half his parents home and my children and I were not very welcome after he died. Back in 1964 not too many women did work out of the home. There was plenty to do there raising a family.

There is just as plenty to do today raising a family, yet families somehow manage to get it done, many with two working parents. Most people start with no home of their own, but struggle and save to get it.

Forgive me, but I really don't see that the situation you were in is much different that the one many young couples are in today. You make choices and you make tradeoffs. If you make a choice to have 4 kids, be a stay-at-home parent, and not complete your education, you should have to live with the financial consequences.

So am I missing something here, do you believe that all seniors not able to save enough to work on should be put on welfare and just what is your reason.

The reason is that welfare and OAS are conceptually exactly the same, except the thresholds and criteria are different. I see no reason why destitute people of any age shouldn't rely on the same program instead of having a discrimminatory one for those under 65.

Does it make you feel better to look down on us. Because that is what happens to people on welfare. I know I regularly work in our local food bank, I see how awful it is for these people.

No it doesn't make me feel better at all. My preference is that nobody is on OAS or welfare and eveyone earned their keep.

I've said before, that I view OAS and welfare as the same, they are both simply hand-out programs. So is your justification that OAS should exist, so that seniors are "not looked down upon"?

[Wilber]

What I always found funny was the so-called "senior's discount" at theatres, etc. A senior who has far more money than many people and no mortgage, etc. gets into a show for a considerably reduced amount Or better yet: in a BC campground up drives a senior in his $75,000 mobile and gets to stay for free

Private business is entitled to charge what they want. I assume they give discounts for business reasons. I have a ways to go to get senior discounts but I do use BC campgrounds. Seniors pay half except for the busiest months when they pay the same as everyone else.

It will always be a point of contention as to who is entitled to what. We have segments of every age group who feel they are entitled to public money and segments of every age group who cheat public programs. Anyone who asks for money from government is asking for someone else's money. Seniors have no monopoly on entitlement. Seniors who cannot take care of themselves will be taken care of by someones children if not their own, just like anyone else who can't take care of themselves and is looked after by public programs. There was no public Medicare in Canada until I was nearly in my teens, my parents payed their own way. We pay into the system for all our working lives but most of us only really have to start collecting during the last few years of our lives.

Our whole life is a series of advance or deferred payments. We didn't pay for our own basic education when we were children so by paying for our children's, we are in effect paying for our own. We rarely use the medical system when we are younger and paying the most into it through taxes but need it when we get older. Much of the infrastructure we use was built by those who came before us. We look after seniors in need, it follows that we will be looked after if we are in need.

[Renegade]

Private business is entitled to charge what they want. I assume they give discounts for business reasons.

It is an interesting statement. Are business free to set discrimminatory pricing? Is there any moral difference between offering a senior's discount and offering a "white person's" discount? Shoudl we be upset at the offering of one but not upset at the other?

Our whole life is a series of advance or deferred payments. We didn't pay for our own basic education when we were children so by paying for our children's, we are in effect paying for our own. We rarely use the medical system when we are younger and paying the most into it through taxes but need it when we get older. Much of the infrastructure we use was built by those who came before us. We look after seniors in need, it follows that we will be looked after if we are in need.

You can choose to look it at that way to justify the rich payout that seniors get, but in reality it doesn't operate that way.

There is no accounting of who paid what into the system. People who have never paid can still collect most of the benefits. Further there is no guarantee that the benefits will stay in place in the future.

It would seem to be a poor deal on the part of the payers to pay now based upon the expectation of future benefits which may or may not come. In fact the whole system is somewhat constructed as a pyramid scheme which depends upon more payors than payees. So we are in a a situation of either encouraging overpopulation or risk these financial schemes collapsing.

[margrace]

Does it make you feel better to look down on us. Because that is what happens to people on welfare. I know I regularly work in our local food bank, I see how awful it is for these people.

.

[margrace]

Renegade

You can choose to look it at that way to justify the rich payout that seniors get, but in reality it doesn't operate that way.

Interesting concept, you call an income of around $12,000 a year a rich income. I am wondering, that is my income, what is yours.

[Renegade]

It is obvious that you have had a pretty good life, were you going to school in 1948 as I was. Do you know anything about it? One of the reasons we have some of these programs are the horrendous stories from the 1930's where people literally had to be starving to get any help from their municipalities. They were forced to beg almost on their knees for a little help.

So now you have to reach into the 30s to justify your arguments that you should have OAS? You consistantly try and side-track the discussion with excuses and diversions.

IMV, if there is anything to be learned out of the 30s, it is that people need to be prepared for financial collapse through their own savings and insurance. Not expect muncipalites to cater to their requests for handouts.

Not too many people in my day graduated from High School, in fact in a school of 200 only 8 were in grade 13, where you had to graduate.

Why, were people forced out of high-school or did they leave voluntarily? Were they blissfully ignorant that they required skills in order to earn better pay?

Large families were common in my time, we did not choose, we just took what came and were thankful to have them. Farm families doubled up so that they younger people could be close to their work.

Yes, I know the model well. It is still practiced in many countries. Have lots of kids, have them work the fields, and your kids support you when you retire.

The only part you seem to be missing out on is the part where the kids support you when you retire. You would prefer that the taxpayer support your retirement.

In spite of your denial, you did choose to have kids. You make that choice every time you have sex and opt to take the risk of pregnancy. You choose every time to opt to carry a pregnancy to term. You choose every time you opt to keep the baby instead of give it up for adoption. So if you couldn't afford 4 kids, you still made a choice to have them.

Do you have any idea of what I am talking about.

Absolutely! You are advocating for a system where individuals do not have to take responsibilty and live with the consequences of their actions.

From the way you sound I would think you have yet to see 45.

It is irrelevant what age I am. I could be 18, I could be 90. It is just as much ageism to sterotype a person based upon their age as any other characteristic. If you have a rebuttal to my argument, put it forward, otherwise leave age out of it as it is not relevant.

You are exactly the judgmental meism type person that helped create all our social programs.

While it is magnamous of you to assign me credit for creating all our social programs, I can take no such credit. Most of the programs are holdovers from government spending gone wild in the late 60s and 70s, and has created numerous parasites in society who do no more than consume the fruits of another's labour.

[Renegade]

Renegade

You can choose to look it at that way to justify the rich payout that seniors get, but in reality it doesn't operate that way.

Do tell then how does it operate?

Interesting concept, you call an income of around $12,000 a year a rich income. I am wondering, that is my income, what is yours.

No, what I said was the payout was rich. Rich is a relative word. I meant rich compared to what any other segment gets and certainly rich compared to what most other countries give seniors. I didn't mean only OAS, but here are but a few of the benefits which seniors are "entitled" to:

OAS

GIS

CPP

Medicare (This is worth far more to seniors than young people)

Pension Tax Credits

Pension Tax Splitting

Home Adaptation for Seniors Independence

Senior's discounts

Senior's Drug plan subsidy

[margrace]

[

[margrace]

It is obvious that you have had a pretty good life, were you going to school in 1948 as I was. Do you know anything about it? One of the reasons we have some of these programs are the horrendous stories from the 1930's where people literally had to be starving to get any help from their municipalities. They were forced to beg almost on their knees for a little help.

So now you have to reach into the 30s to justify your arguments that you should have OAS? You consistantly try and side-track the discussion with excuses and diversions.

IMV, if there is anything to be learned out of the 30s, it is that people need to be prepared for financial collapse through their own savings and insurance. Not expect muncipalites to cater to their requests for handouts.

Not too many people in my day graduated from High School, in fact in a school of 200 only 8 were in grade 13, where you had to graduate.

What an insulting person, you obviously have not a clue what you are talking about. You demand that I answer your questions and then twist they answers to suit yourself. Mean while you make no effort ot honestly answer mine. This a all an argument from a very spoiled yound person who is completely greedy and cares only for themselves.

[Renegade]

What an insulting person, you obviously have not a clue what you are talking about.

Who exactly did I insult? You? You'll need to point it out because I wasnt' aware that I had started.

You demand that I answer your questions and then twist they answers to suit yourself.

If your answers prove my point, do you not expect that I should point that out?

Mean while you make no effort ot honestly answer mine.

Exactly what did I not answer honestly of your questions? Despite my requests you have not answered some of mine. Here are but a few you fail to address:

Why would the general taxpayer have more of an obligation to support you in your time of need than your family and friends?

If you didn't finish high-school, who's fault is that?

So is your justification that OAS should exist, so that seniors are "not looked down upon"?

Do tell then how does it operate?

There, can you read that now?

This a all an argument from a very spoiled yound person who is completely greedy and cares only for themselves.

Hmm, who's the one throwing out insults?

[Wilber]

It is an interesting statement. Are business free to set discrimminatory pricing? Is there any moral difference between offering a senior's discount and offering a "white person's" discount? Shoudl we be upset at the offering of one but not upset at the other?

Actually there are few things that are more inclusive, only those who die young are exempt, but if you want to play that game, any discounts given to children are also discriminatory.

There is no accounting of who paid what into the system. People who have never paid can still collect most of the benefits. Further there is no guarantee that the benefits will stay in place in the future.

That is true of any social program and as good a reason as any to make our existing ones work, instead of dreaming up new ones.

Should those seniors who aren't in dire need receive benefits? Perhaps not and perhaps that will have to change but how far do you want to take that philosophy? Should those who can afford to pay for their own medical treatment be excluded from using the public system but still be forced to finance it?

It would seem to be a poor deal on the part of the payers to pay now based upon the expectation of future benefits which may or may not come. In fact the whole system is somewhat constructed as a pyramid scheme which depends upon more payors than payees. So we are in a a situation of either encouraging overpopulation or risk these financial schemes collapsing.

So you want guarantees for the future, something no other generation in history has had. That's not a sense of entitlement?

[Renegade]

Actually there are few things that are more inclusive, only those who die young are exempt, but if you want to play that game, any discounts given to children are also discriminatory.

Actually it would be more inclusive to charge everyone the same price regardless of age. Isn't it fairer to charge the same price without differentiating on age, then dangling some future discount which they may or may not get when they retire?

As for children, I agree, they are discriminatory, no more or less so than senior's discounts.

That is true of any social program and as good a reason as any to make our existing ones work, instead of dreaming up new ones.

Yes it is true of any social program. That is why social programs cannot be considered as time deferred payments.

That a social program is deferred payment plan (such as CPP) or strictly a social benefit (such as OAS) has got nothing to do with whether they are useful programs, so I don't see your logic in saying this is a good reason to make existing ones work.

Should those seniors who aren't in dire need receive benefits? Perhaps not and perhaps that will have to change but how far do you want to take that philosophy?

No they shouldn't recieve welfare type benefits. How far? All the way.

Should those who can afford to pay for their own medical treatment be excluded from using the public system but still be forced to finance it?

Yes. Isn't that what we do for schools and welfare? IMV, "free" (ie paid for by the taxpayer) medical care, should only be provided to those in dire need (ie on welfare). Everyone else should have to purchase medical insurance. I'm not saying that the medical insurance should be privately run, but I am saying it should be an insurance-based system instead of a general social benefit.

So you want guarantees for the future, something no other generation in history has had. That's not a sense of entitlement?

No actually I don't. It is unrealistic to get a guarantee and in any case I don't think a gurantee is possible. What I am saying is that without a guarantee, it is a poor deal for the payor. As a payor, I'd rather take no deal, than a poor deal.

What I want is nothing at all. No guarantee. No forced payment.. No benefit. Simple isn't it?

[Riverwind]

Everyone else should have to purchase medical insurance. I'm not saying that the medical insurance should be privately run, but I am saying it should be an insurance-based system instead of a general social benefit.

All means tested programs serve as a disincentive to work harder because the additional costs are equivalent to a huge marginal tax rate once your income exceeds a certain level. You could have a system where premiums were tied to income but I fail to see why that is different from a progressive income tax system.

[Renegade]

All means tested programs serve as a disincentive to work harder because the additional costs are equivalent to a huge marginal tax rate once your income exceeds a certain level. You could have a system where premiums were tied to income but I fail to see why that is different from a progressive income tax system.

A couple of things are different:

In a (at least ours) progressive tax system, the taxes start at a low level and progress gradually in tiers to high income levels. I am proposing that eveyone above a fairly low threshold pay the "fair value" of the premium. I agree at the cutoff point, it is equivalent to a huge marginal tax rate just as it is with welfare.

With a progressive tax system, the only thing that dictates your premium is you income. I suggest that with a medical type insurance, you medical risk, age, history, and other relevant factors determine your premium not your income.

RW, I think this is a rehash of a discussion we have had some time ago.

[Wilber]

Yes. Isn't that what we do for schools and welfare? IMV, "free" (ie paid for by the taxpayer) medical care, should only be provided to those in dire need (ie on welfare). Everyone else should have to purchase medical insurance. I'm not saying that the medical insurance should be privately run, but I am saying it should be an insurance-based system instead of a general social benefit.

If you received a primary education in this country, someone else paid for it. Now that you pay taxes, you are paying for it. It is deferred payment. We purchase medical insurance in the form of taxes. I don't see the difference, the same people will pay. Most of us don't need it when we are young but do when we get older. For most people it is a deferred benefit.

That a social program is deferred payment plan (such as CPP) or strictly a social benefit (such as OAS) has got nothing to do with whether they are useful programs, so I don't see your logic in saying this is a good reason to make existing ones work.

I guess it depends on your circumstances as to how useful they are but in the case of the CPP we need some sort of enforced pension system because one way or another you will be looking after those who can't look after themselves in old age.