According to the latest Treasury Board estimates, Old Age Security (OAS) payments will cost Canadians $67.8 billion dollars in the 2026-27 fiscal year. Guaranteed Income Supplement payments (for eligible Canadians 65 years and older) will add another $20.3 billion. Between them, those will make up more than 17 percent of the total federal budget.
Now, OAS is a critical function of government that no one is seriously considering eliminating. But that doesn’t mean its current structure is ideal or that there might not be ways to significantly reduce its drain on government finances.
The goal of the OAS program is to provide support for low-income seniors with no other source of funds. To ensure that only genuinely deserving Canadians receive it, OAS eligibility is income tested: if you earn more than a basic amount during the year, your OAS payments will be clawed back.
The problem is that program eligibility isn’t means tested. So a senior in Toronto who owns a mortgage-free two million dollar house and has another couple of million dollars in unrealized investments could, under some circumstances, receive the maximum OAS payment. While another senior living in a basement rental and surviving month-to-month from CPP payments and RIF withdrawals could - because CPP and RIF income are both taxable and trigger claw backs - see half of his OAS payments cut.
That’s obviously not fair. But there’s not a lot that any government could do about it: reliably testing for means would be unjustifiably complicated and invasive.
However it might be possible to play around with OAS recovery thresholds to exclude a higher number of seniors whose income isn’t desperately low.
Current rules allow any senior whose net income is below $95,323 to keep the full payment (around $8,917 annually for those 65-74, and $9,800 for those older than 75). Any income above $95,323 will reduce OAS payments by 15 percent until they fall to zero. That’ll happen at around $152,062 for those under 75 and $157,923 for those who are older.
Reducing all thresholds by $20,000 - so that only those earning less than $75,323 would earn the maximum amount - could save the system around two billion dollars a year. And leaving the minimum income recovery threshold at $95,323 but dropping the maximum thresholds to, say, $120,000 and $125,000, could save a billion or so.
That’s real money. Unfortunately, it’s nowhere near close to enough real money. There’s no way politicians of any party are going to risk annoying the high-election-turnout seniors demographic. So, for political reasons, that’s a non-starter.
However, there might be another approach. Imagine simplifying the tax system1 by reducing income tax rates, but maintaining overall revenue by removing some deductions. This would increase the amount of money many seniors get to keep - but also reduce marginal eligibility for OAS and GIS. If the changes were properly calibrated, they might not trigger any net losses for seniors.
Over time, the reform could additionally prompt more Canadians to choose to remain in the workforce for longer and build stronger retirement savings for themselves (not to mention pay more income tax in the process). In theory, this would happen because getting to keep more of your employment income makes work more meaningful and satisfying.
Britain’s Collapse Is Coming—How Long Until Canada Joins Them?
The UK is said to be in some trouble these days. Assessing the extent of the trouble might depend on who you ask. The pessimists insist that the country’s on the very brink of economic and social collapse.
Do Indigenous Canadians Benefit From Government Support?
Aside from payments for pensions and benefits through Employment and Social Development Canada and for interest payments on our debt, Canada spends more on indigenous matters than anything else.
Government Subsidies and the Oil and Gas Industry
Does the Canadian government subsidize companies operating in our oil and gas sector? According to research by science and technology journalist Emily Chung, between $4.5 billion and $81 billion of public funds are spent each year for assistance to the industry. But Chung notes how ambiguous definitions (what exactly
Something that’s been an urgent need for decades in any case.
Notwithstanding the obvious reluctance by politicians to effect any meaningful change to the current system, surely it’s time to impose a graduated increase in the age of eligibility for OAS. We’re living, and working , much longer now than when the programme was introduced.
Let’s not confuse wealth and income. I do agree that there is room to lower the limit on income.