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.
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.
The truth is, as a retired accountant, I saw just a whole lot of folks who were wealthy today and not tomorrow as stock portfolios increased and decreased, real estate gyrated and so forth.
Any consideration of actual wealth - such as the proposals for a wealth tax - are usually half baked and based entirely on envy, with no real good economic analysis behind them. Such proposals, when you boil them down typically start and end with the thought that "'he' has wealth and I don't; that's not fair [with no consideration whatsoever of what fair really means] and I want some of what 'he' has."
I therefore agree fully with you that income is the correct measure, not wealth.
Sir, you write, ".... OAS eligibility is income tested ...." Not really.
Oh, there is the clawback that starts at 95,323 (2026 number), so 190,646 for a couple. The clawback starts there but one keeps getting OAS (reduced by 15% for each additional dollar of net income) until net income reaches 152,062 or 157,923 if one is 75. By any standard that is pretty damned lavish. No matter if one owns that mortgage free house in Toronto or Vancouver (or even Calgary where I live) to which you refer, the actual INCOME restriction is too damned high.
I am a senior (just turned 75 so I get the topped up amount) and I find that I do need that amount. Oh, why do I need it? Why, to avoid dipping into my savings as much as would otherwise be the case. Some "need!" Simply put, in reality neither my wife nor I truly need the OAS. But, if they are paying it out so foolishly ..... Pretty lame excuse, no?
So, yes, absolutely reduce the threshold at which the clawback hits. I, and pretty much everyone, will be unhappy but tough! Truthfully, we don't actually NEED that difference. Will I miss it? Certainly, but that is no reason to impoverish the next generations because that is what we are doing when the government is borrowing money to pay OAS.
A very, very, very important additional point is that the income level at which the clawback starts MUST be based on joint income. Other income programs such as the GST credit (yes, I know, now renamed), Canada Child Benefit (aka Family Allowance) require consideration of joint income.
I absolutely know that seniors will be unhappy and there will be arguments of gender unfairness, yada, yada, yada but the government, in the vernacular, just has to grow a pair and stand up and tell everyone that to keep the OAS as it is is transferring debt to the next generations and, NO, because you are a senior it doesn't mean that you get a free ride.
My comment was intended as what should be done with no expectation that it ever will be done. In fact, my expectation is that such action would be opposed vigorously by fools who believe that a) government is all knowing; b) governments supply truly "free" stuff; and c) all "free" stuff has no cost to the public.
I live in Alberta and I self-describe as an Alberta separatist. Why is that pertinent you may wonder. Quite simply, I believe that the country is so, so, so big with incredibly different things that are important in each region that any idea that successfully is thought to be "good" in one region is bound to be thought "bad" in one or more other regions.
Therefore, my thinking goes, if we in Alberta can separate we can work on trying to bring some fiscal coherence within our own region while other regions can simply choose to select roads leading to bankruptcy if that is their wish; it certainly isn't my wish. As you might imagine, there are other issues that cause me to think that political route is most attractive but I won't go into them here; after all, you don't run a political newsletter so I won't try to introduce politics any further than I have already done.
Going broke as a nation is the easiest solution to the political class and voting Eloi. A constitutional amendment outlawing peacetime deficit spending would make life harder for politicians and their voting enablers but might save the nation from eventual collapse. Single term limits would do almost the same as it would eliminate the inherent conflict of interest of "re-election" as well as the scurvy of professional politicians. Banning political parties and elections would also work under a better constitution with a citizens assembly of single term staggered random draft of citizenry much like jury duty. Democracies all have expiry dates and can only flourish with a high trust society and high level of individual responsibility and critical thinking.
it should be means tested. why not. but it's kind of hilarious that this is even in discussion given the federal and provincial funding that goes to less than 5 percent of the population with no means testing, little oversight, and no accountability, not even mentioning the contingent liability of, this year, 85 billion (projected to be $2 trillion over the next decade) that taxpayers are on the hook for. seems like priorities are kind of skewed, no?
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.
The truth is, as a retired accountant, I saw just a whole lot of folks who were wealthy today and not tomorrow as stock portfolios increased and decreased, real estate gyrated and so forth.
Any consideration of actual wealth - such as the proposals for a wealth tax - are usually half baked and based entirely on envy, with no real good economic analysis behind them. Such proposals, when you boil them down typically start and end with the thought that "'he' has wealth and I don't; that's not fair [with no consideration whatsoever of what fair really means] and I want some of what 'he' has."
I therefore agree fully with you that income is the correct measure, not wealth.
Sir, you write, ".... OAS eligibility is income tested ...." Not really.
Oh, there is the clawback that starts at 95,323 (2026 number), so 190,646 for a couple. The clawback starts there but one keeps getting OAS (reduced by 15% for each additional dollar of net income) until net income reaches 152,062 or 157,923 if one is 75. By any standard that is pretty damned lavish. No matter if one owns that mortgage free house in Toronto or Vancouver (or even Calgary where I live) to which you refer, the actual INCOME restriction is too damned high.
I am a senior (just turned 75 so I get the topped up amount) and I find that I do need that amount. Oh, why do I need it? Why, to avoid dipping into my savings as much as would otherwise be the case. Some "need!" Simply put, in reality neither my wife nor I truly need the OAS. But, if they are paying it out so foolishly ..... Pretty lame excuse, no?
So, yes, absolutely reduce the threshold at which the clawback hits. I, and pretty much everyone, will be unhappy but tough! Truthfully, we don't actually NEED that difference. Will I miss it? Certainly, but that is no reason to impoverish the next generations because that is what we are doing when the government is borrowing money to pay OAS.
A very, very, very important additional point is that the income level at which the clawback starts MUST be based on joint income. Other income programs such as the GST credit (yes, I know, now renamed), Canada Child Benefit (aka Family Allowance) require consideration of joint income.
I absolutely know that seniors will be unhappy and there will be arguments of gender unfairness, yada, yada, yada but the government, in the vernacular, just has to grow a pair and stand up and tell everyone that to keep the OAS as it is is transferring debt to the next generations and, NO, because you are a senior it doesn't mean that you get a free ride.
Is it even *possible* to convince the government to stop unnecessary payments should we be so moved as to request it?
My comment was intended as what should be done with no expectation that it ever will be done. In fact, my expectation is that such action would be opposed vigorously by fools who believe that a) government is all knowing; b) governments supply truly "free" stuff; and c) all "free" stuff has no cost to the public.
I live in Alberta and I self-describe as an Alberta separatist. Why is that pertinent you may wonder. Quite simply, I believe that the country is so, so, so big with incredibly different things that are important in each region that any idea that successfully is thought to be "good" in one region is bound to be thought "bad" in one or more other regions.
Therefore, my thinking goes, if we in Alberta can separate we can work on trying to bring some fiscal coherence within our own region while other regions can simply choose to select roads leading to bankruptcy if that is their wish; it certainly isn't my wish. As you might imagine, there are other issues that cause me to think that political route is most attractive but I won't go into them here; after all, you don't run a political newsletter so I won't try to introduce politics any further than I have already done.
Going broke as a nation is the easiest solution to the political class and voting Eloi. A constitutional amendment outlawing peacetime deficit spending would make life harder for politicians and their voting enablers but might save the nation from eventual collapse. Single term limits would do almost the same as it would eliminate the inherent conflict of interest of "re-election" as well as the scurvy of professional politicians. Banning political parties and elections would also work under a better constitution with a citizens assembly of single term staggered random draft of citizenry much like jury duty. Democracies all have expiry dates and can only flourish with a high trust society and high level of individual responsibility and critical thinking.
it should be means tested. why not. but it's kind of hilarious that this is even in discussion given the federal and provincial funding that goes to less than 5 percent of the population with no means testing, little oversight, and no accountability, not even mentioning the contingent liability of, this year, 85 billion (projected to be $2 trillion over the next decade) that taxpayers are on the hook for. seems like priorities are kind of skewed, no?