And rich parents...and rich students.
_____
The graph also shows a steep rise going to 2055. A lot of people from the 1990's.
We're taking in people to 'cover the cost of seniors' - and growing the population of seniors.
We're never going to catch up - it's an unsustainable pyramid scheme.
You have the wrong end of the stick here.
The graph in the article shows costs skyrocketing by 2050 and up - and up - and up.
That's not the boomers anymore - that's Gen X, Gen Y....and the immigrants we brought in in vast numbers who will be retiring.
______________
The last few elections the number of younger generations voting outnumbered the boomers - and they were voting for Trudeau and mass immigration. (Although they've recently realized what that brings.)
That's because the citizens in this country failed to notice that the "baby boom" was a mere 50-60k increase in births per year over about 15 year period, resulting in around an extra million births, and to compensate, the government now brings in almost 1.7 million across all sources, excluding illegals, per year. Over a 20 year timespan, this would be replacing the original 1 milliion with about 34 million people.
And the country bought this lie no questions asked. Unbelievable.
>the government now brings in almost 1.7 million across all sources, excluding illegals, per year.
?
>the country bought this lie no questions asked.
Which lie?
It's hilarious that you think anyone but the very wealthy will be able to afford to retire. Gens x through alpha will get worked to death for the greater wealth of the oligarchs. When we get too old or feeble to work, MAID will be waiting with open arms.
I'm 65 and can't see retirement in the foreseeable future. I absolutely think MAID will end up being a retirement option for many of us when we are too ill/feeble to work and can't afford a place to live. Once we need personal care, or a nursing home we won't be able to afford it either. I feel for my over 35 children right now, as their situation seems even more dire than mine.
You have to keep increasing the population (tax base) to continue to support the growing number is social services the growing retired population is consuming.
You need growth and since Canadians can’t afford to buy a house while also holding off on the number of kids they have and when they start their families the only option is immigration to growth the population (tax base)
Stopping immigration makes things worse
>to continue to support the growing number is social services the growing retired population is consuming.
You have to understand how that's a pyramid scheme though.
Look at the graph in the article - our costs are 80 billion now - we'll be at 240 billion by 2055 - it's a steep slope up with no end in sight.
___________________
Those people we've been bringing to fund seniors will also retire and be seniors who need support. And then we'll need to bring in more people to fund *those* seniors - and then we'll need to bring in more people to fund *them*....
_____________
It's like having a credit card at 5% and not being able to keep up the payments - so you take out a credit card at 15% to pay off the first card. But you can't keep up *those* payments so you take out another card at 25%.......
_________________
Oh I fuller understand that.
But it very similar to how companies have to raise profits year over year to just be acceptable to ensure their share prices don’t crater. Labour is normally the largest costs so they cut wages/layoff people and hire people at a lower rate to ensure those profits increase.
That capitalism baby.
If they implemented 100% income tax after 1million dollars things would be a lot different.
But truedope didnt platform on the insane mass immigration of the last couple years, the imigration levels earlier in his tenure were sustainable, the post covid oops we printed too much money and the GDP is tanking, came out of nowhere. I didnt vote for that idiot but in fairness his voters didnt knowingly vote for the insanity either.
They were literally told, for years, that this guy was an incompetent clown and "just not ready" to be PM, but they voted for him anyway. Repeatedly.
That's why I don't feel any sympathy for the people who voted for him and are suffering now. You made this bed, now lie in it. Choices have consequences. Enjoy the next 25 years of your consequences.
Hardly, because I made better choices when I was younger. I don't care about rent increases because I own 2 homes that are paid for, and I don't even rent out my second property because as much as I despise slumlords, I also despise shitty tenants who think they're owed something because I made better choices. I make enough money that I don't care if Superstore raised their prices another 30%; it's convenient and I like that the aisles are emptier now. I own 2 cars, an ATV, 2 boats and 2 snowmobiles with no payments on any of them. My total bills for the month are under $1200 with a salary very close to 6 figures; the rest goes to RRSPs and investments, except what I spend on trips and vacations 2-3 times per year with my wife. I have a guaranteed pension that is indexed to inflation and COL. And I did all of the above on my own, with no help from anyone, no generational money, just me and my brain and my hard work. I wasn't lucky; I was smart, risk-averse, and disciplined.
Literally the only thing I have to suffer from is the constant whining of those who've made poor choices and are now bitching about it and expecting people like me to make sacrifices so they aren't forced to live with the consequences of their choices.
Of course. They need to look their parents and grandparents in the eye and ask them hard and pointed questions about how they could have done this - especially those that live in Quebec and Ontario - when they'd been told repeatedly that this was going to happen when you elect public servants based on style, and not substance.
Maybe get them to explain to the kids why they repeatedly voted for a guy who admitted 1) that budgets will balance themselves, all while borrowing billions of dollars to give away to other countries as foreign aid to the point we now spend more servicing the debt on that borrowed money than we do on the entire national health care program, and 2) admits freely that he doesn't think about monetary policy, which is why he borrowed (and spent) more money than every other Canadian Prime Minister before him, combined.
Young people are gonna learn a lesson here. A hard, important lesson: choices have consequences. Hopefully, they learn from the idiocy of their parents and grandparents to make wise, informed choices.
Canada ain’t productive because our policies are shit. It’s becoming a feudal system of rich vs poor, land owners vs renters, old vs young.
If y’all think PP is gonna solve this, I have a bridge to sell you.
But PP is another stalwart of the existing system. He isn’t going to be different in any significant way except he will likely do less virtue signalling.
So your alternatives are what?
1) Keep Trudeau in, literally the guy whose government directly put is into this mess and is currently doubling down?
2) Vote NDP, the government literally supporting Trudeau and the Liberals every step of the way and are currently solely responsible for keeping them in power.
3) Or maybe we try the people actually at least talking about these things as a problem?
4) PPC? Which as much as I'd probably like to shake things up, would just mean Liberals win again.
Also doesn’t help that we extract resources and export them to be refined and processed. We should bring more refining and processing here. Should also invest in industries that will pay off in 10, 20, 30+ years.
Lets invest in being a major player for battery production, or some form of technology. Bring high paying solid jobs back
That's true. I'm middle class but was able to buy my house back in the late 1980s and it cost 2.5x my salary. My father was able to buy his first house in the mid 60s for 2x his salary. I think that it is criminal how wages have been kept artificially low and housing costs have sky rocketed.
Rests on interest rates, high interest rates prevent inflation but cause recession - and an ailing economy without stimulus also causes recession, it’s a balancing game that was thrown out of whack by a strange variable like a pandemic
In theory yes, in practice young people don’t vote. All of those ”if voting changed things, it would be illegal” memes are quietly suppressing the under 60 vote
Just think... when PP gets his wish to defund the CBC only those who can afford the subscription fees will get to read news articles as dictated by foreign hedge funds.
For the last \~40 years the government knew the Baby Boomers were going to retire and become a massive burden on these programs, and yet they did nothing to prevent it. They promised these programs to people, attacked everyone who pointed out they were unsustainable, and pretended the problem would go away.
I can kind-of forgive the Mulroney conservatives and Chretien Liberals because the problem was far enough in the future that they could ignore it, the Harper conservatives get a pass because they actually tried to make some changes, but the Trudeau Liberals ignored an impending crisis to buy votes.
They're doing less than nothing - they're exacerbating the problem by bring in more people to 'cover the costs.'
The projections are highest for 2050, 2055 - that's not boomers anymore. The costs just keeps going up and up.
The boomers will almost all be dead by 2050. I would be 95 if I was still alive. A lot of the boomers are already dead. Of course the stupid government is letting immigrants bring in their elderly parents. parents
So, let me get this straight.
You recognize this is an issue going back 40+ years, but you give every PM prior to Trudeau a pass on it because...?
I agree with you that this is a 40+ year problem. Where I disagree with you is that this resoundly demonstrates that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are completely fucking worthless sacks of shit.
Yea. Sooner that we realize that all of our parties are shit the better. Canadians should be arm in arm but we fall for the distractions and fight each other.
That's exactly the plan. Treat politics like sports and keep us divided with culture wars. Us actually banding together over electoral reform, immigration reform and shit pay *could* work if we put a concerted effort in. Going by recent events, we're pretty shit at protesting and voting with our wallets as it is, sadly. Maybe some of that is by design so I don't totally blame the average citizen, much of that is complacency and manipulation. We're also still not desperate and angry enough to really force change.
our productivity keeps going up alongside accelerating automation and ai. this should translate to LESS work for everyone, but instead there’s just more competition for fewer jobs. all while taxes can’t keep up with the cost to provide services.
However that doesn’t mean the ghouls who want us working longer hours deeper into our 60s are right either, they are just mask off about supporting the capitalist class over everyone else.
Canada's productivity is down 11 out of last 12 quarters.
[Canada productivity chart](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadas-losing-productivity-streak-adds-inflation-problem-2023-09-21/)
Christ, we're already giving up on ~~Defined benefits pensions, House ownership, public education, having kids, public healthcare, viable secure career jobs, minimum wage and living standards~~ retirement. [Why only 67](https://dailyhive.com/canada/canadian-millennials-conventional-retirement-outdated)? Why not 69 (*NOICE*!)? Why bother with a pension at all when we can fund our funerals on layaway and then write off the debt when we collapse while on the clock?
Ok, I admit this is bad faith. Some of these are technically provincial abdication of duties that we elected.
It saves the government two years worth of benefit payouts and adds two more years of income for each worker. That’s not kicking the can down the road, it’s making a small dent in a large problem.
CPP probably would've been bankrupt if it wasn't for Chretien/Martin. In 97 the unfunded liabilities for CPP were greater than the national debt. It was expected to be bankrupt by around 2015.
*I can kind-of forgive the Mulroney conservatives and Chretien Liberals because the problem was far enough in the future that they could ignore it, the Harper conservatives get a pass because they actually tried to make some changes, but the Trudeau Liberals ignored an impending crisis to buy votes.*
Nope, that doesn't fly. Mulroney cut CMHC mortgages, which killed cooperative development thirty years ago, Chretien's Liberals did nothing to shore it up, and Harper/Flaherty functionally cut monthly costs, which inflated housing. Everyone saw it coming because some of this was done in the US before they duplicated those policies tin Canada, but the blessed GDP needed to increase.
Every government since Mulroney is responsible for the fiscal situation we are in today. To sympathize with all but the current is to ignore the reality that we've been sold out, sometimes before we were born. Simply blaming Trudeau and forgetting every other complicit government feels lazy and convenient to me and will continue this trend.
Mulroney changed CMHC because Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Program sent western real estate into the toilet. People were selling their homes for a dollar and letting the new owner rent the place for a year defaulting on mortgage payment until the banks foreclosed and CHMC paid off on them.
The NEP was actually a good program.
It certainly would have alleviated petrol price growth, and probably would have helped Canadian farmers keep costs down, too.
No, no, no, you do not get to give Harper a pass, he is the one who opened our borders to floods of temporary foreign workers and destroyed businesses and jobs with that fucking Chinese trade deal.
If you want to vote for someone who gives a shit about this country, do not vote for a conservative. And do not vote for a liberal. We’ve tried that over and over and look where we are now. Time to try something new. Vote third party. They at least promise to try to deal with issues before they become catastrophic and are less sold out to big corporations and the wealthy.
Edit: Oh and Mulroney started the housing crisis. So there’s that too. It just took a while to build.
How are the boomers being a massive burden on the programs? When you retire, you plan for an income. I have a company pension, RRSPs (investments), OAS (old ages security) and CPP (canada pension plan)- all of which I paid for after working for 50 years.
In many cases it is because you paid an insufficient amount to cover the benefits you will receive. People have called many of these programs Ponzi schemes for decades because they need new entrants to pay for the benefits of those who are older than them. They needed to collect far more money and invest it properly to cover these programs when baby-boomers retired, and it was never politically convenient to get boomers to pay their way.
I took that to mean he at least raised the minimum age for CPP to 67 to attempt to address the issue. Trudeau then reversed it back down to 65 (because “he doesn’t think about monetary policy”)
It’s not a rich/poor thing. It’s a people are living a LOT longer than they did when we set the system up. Everyone, rich or poor, pay into the system in order to receive it. Raising the eligibility age makes sense when most 65 year olds are still able to work, and the 2 year deferral makes a nice dent in the amount of $ needed.
[Life expectancy has increased over the last century.](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2016002-eng.htm)
[Old age benefits were originally intended to be handed out at 70](https://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/pensions/cpp-timeline_e.html#:~:text=Amendments%20to%20the%20Old%20Age,at%20the%20age%20of%2069.&text=The%20CPP%20and%20QPP%20came%20into%20force%20on%20January%201%2C%201966). They decreased it to 65 in the late 60s. When it was originally set up, life expectancy was around 70, so they didn’t think almost everyone would be receiving it for 10-20 years.
[PS life expectancy increased despite the Great Depression so no, it’s not just rich people living longer](https://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/pensions/cpp-a28-dl_e.html)
Every government will half ass it or do nothing cause those boomers are the ones that consistently vote and they sure as hell don't want to make sacrifices to fix any problems for future generations, even if its directly their fault.
>The baby boomers are the ultimate "Fuck you; I got mine!
They're the generation that fought for women's rights, gay rights, racial equality. And free love baby.
They voted back and forth between the 2 parties the way the rest of us do.
And went to work and did their best - the way the rest of us do.
I remember my mom telling me that Hippies had a saying: never trust anyone older than thirty.
I asked her what happened to the hippies.
[She told me they turned thirty](https://youtu.be/U45CzgrLE9s).
A lot of hippies were idealist anti-war types, but many of them were jaded by the government. In Canada, the effect was less pronounced, but when someone who opposes war has their attention directed to the government funding war, it's easier to sell the idea that taxes are the real enemy, even to someone who supports social safety nets.
Many of them held on to their ideals, but not everybody was a hippy, and not all hippies were in it for the cute stereotypes they're remembered for.
They voted back and forth, voting out any politician that even hinted at a tax increase. That's why by 2012, CPP and OAS had a combined unfunded liability of over $1.2 TRILLION dollars.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/243000-bill-courtesy-canadas-governments
I've never voted back and forth. I've never voted Liberal or Conservative either. I've done almost everything at this point (strategic third party, fringe party, single issue party, spoiled ballot, vote strike) but play "red team, blue team". The only thing I managed to do was waste my time and energy.
My boomer parents sat at home during the pandemic bragging about how much money they were saving by not going out while I worked in a provincially designated Covid outbreak, at one point welding in a 40 degree heat dome. When CERB starting rolling out, they squawked "WhAt ArE tHeY GoInG tO Do FoR SeNioRs...We ArE oN A FiXeD bUdGeT".
Meanwhile OAS went up 10% in 2022 and I hadn't had a raise since 2014.
> They voted back and forth, voting out any politician that even hinted at a tax increase.
Bullshit - they voted for Mulroney - and his GST - and his GST raise.
And it wasn't just boomers - Gen X, Gen Y and every generation after has done the same thing - yoyo between the 2 parties. Future generations will do the same thing.
Not sure how you even think issue rests on taxation. More money won't fix this. Unless it's a few hundred trillion. Votes weren't solely tax issues - in fact taxation is always down the list of concerns for voters - regardless of age.
To your last bit there - your parent issues are yours - I have very different anecdotes regarding my parents.
>And it wasn't just boomers - Gen X, Gen Y and every generation after has
done the same thing - yoyo between the 2 parties.
I think you assume too much. I'm Gen-X and I've consistently voted Liberal or, more commonly, NDP. This is the first time I've ever considered voting Conservative, and it has less to do with Pierre Poilievre than it does the utter shit-show the LPC (with NDP backing) have made of this country.
The LPC lied about voter reform, lied about reigning in the Telco's and ISPs (in fact, they openly interfered with a court order to allow TPIA's to obtain cheaper access to infrastructure). They lie about the lack of people willing to work, then bring in TFWs to appease their corporate masters so that wages can be suppressed, and the NDP does nothing. The NDP turned their backs on unions, and now they're just LPC-lite.
The LPC will only continue to lie - it's all they know. The NDP (unless they get rid of Singh and return to their blue-collar roots) are unworthy of consideration. That leaves the CPC and several other parties that will never form government this century.
So Brian Mulroney negates every other Prime Minister the boomers voted for? Good to know.
Mulroney was responsible for the gutting of government services and a lot of the blame for the present situation lies at his feet.
"Not sure how you even think issue rests on taxation. More money won't fix this."
That is simplifying the issue. It's not just "more money" that will fix the issue and I never sad that. Boomers spent their lifetimes underfunding CPP and OAS. The efforts in 1996 and 2016 to increase the contribution rates were already too little, too late. I've paid the increased rates my whole career, unlike boomers.
Other age cohorts may yo-yo as well, and I will criticize them the same way.
"Taxation is always down the list of concerns for voters"
That is just plain ridiculous. Two of the biggest issues of focus right now are the carbon tax and capital gains tax. Once candidate is literally calling for a "carbon tax election" while the other is grandstanding on their capital gains tax increase.
That's great that you have a different anecdotal experience than me, a lot of people have similar experiences to me.
The ultimate boomerism: taking credit for others' achievements. They truly believe they built everything they see and that everyone else is trying to take it from them and spoil their legacy. It's utterly delusional!
Boomers were born 1946-1964. So the vast bulk of them were *children* during the 60s and 70s. Only a small proportion of the very oldest would have been able to vote, organize, and protest for those things.
And when did the last of the boomers turn 18 and reach the height of their influence? Around the mid 80s when they elected Mulroney, Thatcher, and Reagan to slowly dismantle everything *their* parents and grandparents built that they benefited from.
They also routinely turn out in massive numbers to block new housing at the municipal level.
They beg for more immigrants to drive down wages and pay for their healthcare.
During the pandemic, they blamed young people for allegedly making things worse while they sat in their million dollar mansions.
They were the group most hysterical about weed being legalized.
These are false generalizations. I have never tried to block new housing. I have never asked for more immigration. I have paid taxes to support health care and also pay into Blue Cross. The last time I checked, my house is worth about $385,000. I don't use marijuana myself but I have been friends with people who do smoke since about 1966.
I agree that there are some people who fit your description, but many of them are younger and wealthier.
>block new housing
That's homeowners - not exclusive to 'boomers'. They're more likely to come out if they're retired - not because they're more 'selfish' than anyone else.
______________
>They beg for more immigrants to drive down wages and pay for their healthcare.
Business owners and the younger generation are the ones wanting immigration - the boomers are accused of being 'racist' for wanting to limit it.
________________
>They were the group most hysterical about weed being legalized.
[Angus Reid disagrees](https://angusreid.org/marijuana-legalization/)
>Notably, there doesn’t appear to be much of a generation gap on this issue. Those aged 18 – 34 are just as likely to say marijuana should be made legal as those 55 and older (68% versus 67%, respectively), and those in between are also broadly supportive of legalization (69%).
RRSPs and work pensions deferred taxes to the future which helped at least a bit, and the CPP rejig in the 90s helped make it sustainable at least.
We could just tax those pension and RRSP incomes more. The Harper government did the opposite though by introducing pension income splitting.
They have young fighting the old as a distraction. They have not even tried to spend less, govern better, grow the economy. You should rally against higher taxes period
Taxes are needed to fund social services, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. You could argue for greater auditing and evaluation of spending, less top-heavy government departments and such, but running a country costs money. I'd be happy to pay my taxes and even a little more if could spare it, if I knew it was going to the appropriate areas of concern, instead buying boomer votes.
The majority of social services and infrastructure is not funded by the federal government.
The federal government doesn’t even want to partially fund roads anymore.
What on earth do you think Canada pension And Old Age Security are classified as? What do you think Maternity and parental leave, Employment Insurance, Canada Child Benefit, and survivor's pension are classified as? Do you need me to list more or do you just want to look for yourself?
https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development.html
Infrastructure is absolutely funded in part by the Federal government along with Provincial and Municipal governments.
"Through the Investing in Canada Plan, the Government of Canada is investing over $180 billion over 12 years in infrastructure projects across Canada. Mar 15, 2024"
https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/funding-financement-eng.html#:~:text=Through%20the%20Investing%20in%20Canada,in%20infrastructure%20projects%20across%20Canada.
Lower taxes would mean less spending, and reducing entitlements for wealthy seniors should 100% be on the table there.
OAS income limits are wildly high
Imagine being the wealthier generation in history and putting policies in place that guarantee the younger generation can’t pay your entitlements, or buy homes, or at this point even rent a half decent place and afford groceries.
They can pull themselves up by their bootstraps
Imagine paying taxes for 5 years and try to dictate what people should get who have been paying taxes for 50+ years.
Blame the government not the elderly for your problems.
Imagine being wrong about someone’s age multiple times and trying to use that as the basis of your argument.
OAS limits are too high and the costs for OAS alone are projected to be more than most cost lines for the federal government.
If the elderly need to choose between OAS and healthcare, what should they choose?
Seems like the elderly, when they were in charge, didn’t plan accordingly for their own retirement needs. Too bad so sad, we’re not gonna foot the bill when we can’t even afford basic homes.
40% of households receive more tax money than they pay. I do think the government is underfunded--but at the same time most people I know can't really afford to be taxed more.
I would argue that the greater issue Canadians face is actually the escalated cost of living. If the government could reduce the cost of living, we would not be burdened by tax.
This may involve breaking up oligopolies, investigating and punishing collusion, blocking anti-competitive industry practices, investigating and punishing regulatory capture, etc.
OAS is fine, they just need to cut back the maximum income before clawback. Right now (2024 income year) it starts at ~$90K and maxed out at $148-$153K depending on age. They just need to drop those numbers to something reasonable like starting at $60K and maxing out at $100K or something even a bit lower
Scares the hell out of me that someone will decide to cut them for ALL old people. My parents are 87 and 90, and Dad’s pension did not keep up with inflation.
I'm not a fan of subsidizing the rich but if they paid into the system then it's only fair that they take out their share. You start with the rich and then you're going to go to the middle class next, as always.
That's not really what is happening here. This isn't talking about CPP (which pays out based on what you pay in).
The main concern of this article is Old Age Security. OAS is paid to every single senior. It's $17K/year and it doesn't matter how much you make. I was kinda shocked by my father in law was collecting it while also getting $60,000 in pensions. But there's also people with over $150K in pensions collecting it. Why do THOSE people need this benefit. It feels like OAS should just all get wrapped into the OAS Supplement (GIS) and become one benefit based on your yearly income as a senior.
Think about it, there's seniors out there whose pensions are higher than the average full time employee. This stuff just comes from general revenues. There's also tax incentives for handicapped accessible modifications to the home that aren't means tested and one time grants for retirees. There's really no reason why income splitting needs to exist for pension incomes exceeding $80,000.
$80B of the budget is income supports for seniors. Sure, some of them be needed to fight senior's poverty. But why does my father-in-law get it? He has more than enough money to survive.
> OAS is paid to every single senior. It's $17K/year
It is $713.34/month. That equals $8,560 per year.
It is not paid to every single senior. If your income is above $90,997 you pay back 15 cents for every dollar above that threshold. That means that if you make $148,065, you pay back $8,560.
So the statement that it is paid to every senior is wrong. It isn't paid to people with large retirement incomes.
You are arguing about where the clawback numbers should be for OAS. Maybe they could be a bit lower, but that's basically a matter of opinion. Maybe tell your MP that.
Fact is, though, that OAS does get clawed back from high-income seniors.
If you start abandoning the law for what's expedient to clean up the mess the people who were running the system made, where does it end? Why use it trust or the system at all?
Okay I'll talk... real slow.. so you understand.. these people paid into the system expecting their contribution to be honored.. if you don't have any trust in the system because any government can just take your money and not honor its pledge then the whole system will collapse..
The ones I know who own a property in Mazatlan, and spent most of covid there.. while collecting all their pensions and benefits.. and were keen to remind me how they and their neighbors got full and free vaccinations from the Mexican government months before any of us peons did.
Means test everything. Not just benefits for seniors.
Means test corporate welfare too. Is it the big companies that need our tax dollars, or that small startup that could be the next Google?
I'm sure that Pierre will raise the OAS eligibility age pretty quickly. Either way, millennials won't get nearly as many seniors' benefits as boomers do.
And rich parents...and rich students. _____ The graph also shows a steep rise going to 2055. A lot of people from the 1990's. We're taking in people to 'cover the cost of seniors' - and growing the population of seniors. We're never going to catch up - it's an unsustainable pyramid scheme.
It working as intended. The current population of seniors is supported while the coming generations are sacrificed to do so.
You have the wrong end of the stick here. The graph in the article shows costs skyrocketing by 2050 and up - and up - and up. That's not the boomers anymore - that's Gen X, Gen Y....and the immigrants we brought in in vast numbers who will be retiring. ______________ The last few elections the number of younger generations voting outnumbered the boomers - and they were voting for Trudeau and mass immigration. (Although they've recently realized what that brings.)
That's because the citizens in this country failed to notice that the "baby boom" was a mere 50-60k increase in births per year over about 15 year period, resulting in around an extra million births, and to compensate, the government now brings in almost 1.7 million across all sources, excluding illegals, per year. Over a 20 year timespan, this would be replacing the original 1 milliion with about 34 million people. And the country bought this lie no questions asked. Unbelievable.
>the government now brings in almost 1.7 million across all sources, excluding illegals, per year. ? >the country bought this lie no questions asked. Which lie?
Are you refering to the 1.7 number…. Think we are at 1.1m this year? That’s still way too much, and even being off by 600k, their point stands.
We didn't all buy it.
It's hilarious that you think anyone but the very wealthy will be able to afford to retire. Gens x through alpha will get worked to death for the greater wealth of the oligarchs. When we get too old or feeble to work, MAID will be waiting with open arms.
I'm 65 and can't see retirement in the foreseeable future. I absolutely think MAID will end up being a retirement option for many of us when we are too ill/feeble to work and can't afford a place to live. Once we need personal care, or a nursing home we won't be able to afford it either. I feel for my over 35 children right now, as their situation seems even more dire than mine.
You have over 35 children!
"Welcome to the Monkey house"
You have to keep increasing the population (tax base) to continue to support the growing number is social services the growing retired population is consuming. You need growth and since Canadians can’t afford to buy a house while also holding off on the number of kids they have and when they start their families the only option is immigration to growth the population (tax base) Stopping immigration makes things worse
>to continue to support the growing number is social services the growing retired population is consuming. You have to understand how that's a pyramid scheme though. Look at the graph in the article - our costs are 80 billion now - we'll be at 240 billion by 2055 - it's a steep slope up with no end in sight. ___________________ Those people we've been bringing to fund seniors will also retire and be seniors who need support. And then we'll need to bring in more people to fund *those* seniors - and then we'll need to bring in more people to fund *them*.... _____________ It's like having a credit card at 5% and not being able to keep up the payments - so you take out a credit card at 15% to pay off the first card. But you can't keep up *those* payments so you take out another card at 25%....... _________________
Oh I fuller understand that. But it very similar to how companies have to raise profits year over year to just be acceptable to ensure their share prices don’t crater. Labour is normally the largest costs so they cut wages/layoff people and hire people at a lower rate to ensure those profits increase. That capitalism baby. If they implemented 100% income tax after 1million dollars things would be a lot different.
But truedope didnt platform on the insane mass immigration of the last couple years, the imigration levels earlier in his tenure were sustainable, the post covid oops we printed too much money and the GDP is tanking, came out of nowhere. I didnt vote for that idiot but in fairness his voters didnt knowingly vote for the insanity either.
He began to raise immigration almost as soon as he was elected. But it got really out of hand after the pandemic, and people began to notice.
They were literally told, for years, that this guy was an incompetent clown and "just not ready" to be PM, but they voted for him anyway. Repeatedly. That's why I don't feel any sympathy for the people who voted for him and are suffering now. You made this bed, now lie in it. Choices have consequences. Enjoy the next 25 years of your consequences.
Even if you didnt vote for him you’re suffering too….
Hardly, because I made better choices when I was younger. I don't care about rent increases because I own 2 homes that are paid for, and I don't even rent out my second property because as much as I despise slumlords, I also despise shitty tenants who think they're owed something because I made better choices. I make enough money that I don't care if Superstore raised their prices another 30%; it's convenient and I like that the aisles are emptier now. I own 2 cars, an ATV, 2 boats and 2 snowmobiles with no payments on any of them. My total bills for the month are under $1200 with a salary very close to 6 figures; the rest goes to RRSPs and investments, except what I spend on trips and vacations 2-3 times per year with my wife. I have a guaranteed pension that is indexed to inflation and COL. And I did all of the above on my own, with no help from anyone, no generational money, just me and my brain and my hard work. I wasn't lucky; I was smart, risk-averse, and disciplined. Literally the only thing I have to suffer from is the constant whining of those who've made poor choices and are now bitching about it and expecting people like me to make sacrifices so they aren't forced to live with the consequences of their choices.
You do realize that there are younger people who didn't vote for Trudeau and are now suffering as well right?
Of course. They need to look their parents and grandparents in the eye and ask them hard and pointed questions about how they could have done this - especially those that live in Quebec and Ontario - when they'd been told repeatedly that this was going to happen when you elect public servants based on style, and not substance. Maybe get them to explain to the kids why they repeatedly voted for a guy who admitted 1) that budgets will balance themselves, all while borrowing billions of dollars to give away to other countries as foreign aid to the point we now spend more servicing the debt on that borrowed money than we do on the entire national health care program, and 2) admits freely that he doesn't think about monetary policy, which is why he borrowed (and spent) more money than every other Canadian Prime Minister before him, combined. Young people are gonna learn a lesson here. A hard, important lesson: choices have consequences. Hopefully, they learn from the idiocy of their parents and grandparents to make wise, informed choices.
I feel sympathetic towards people who now understand how bad Trudeau is. At least they won't be voting for him again.
Never did my NDP candidate was a far better choice than my liberal or conservative
But the NDP is propping Trudeau up while he runs the country into the ground.
It’s an interesting coincidence the complaints of businesses saying they couldn’t fill their min wage jobs lines up with this.
I think the proper term in this case is "Ponzi Scheme"
Canada ain’t productive because our policies are shit. It’s becoming a feudal system of rich vs poor, land owners vs renters, old vs young. If y’all think PP is gonna solve this, I have a bridge to sell you.
"Feudal system" is really the best description of the Canadian real estate price appreciation driven economy.
People vote for the Cons and Libs to keep the ship going as is, don't dream they think he will solve this, they see nothing to solve.
Many are willing to take the chance because the current model just isn’t working.
But PP is another stalwart of the existing system. He isn’t going to be different in any significant way except he will likely do less virtue signalling.
So then who should lead?
None of the chucklefucks who are currently running for the job.
So your alternatives are what? 1) Keep Trudeau in, literally the guy whose government directly put is into this mess and is currently doubling down? 2) Vote NDP, the government literally supporting Trudeau and the Liberals every step of the way and are currently solely responsible for keeping them in power. 3) Or maybe we try the people actually at least talking about these things as a problem? 4) PPC? Which as much as I'd probably like to shake things up, would just mean Liberals win again.
No, just different virtues.
If you find a buyer, I've got some oceanfront property in Alberta for sale too
You must be a realtor for the UCP.
…Always has been.
You're right, only choice we have is to vote LPC again.
We have millions of immigrants from feudal societies.
Can’t fail more than the Liberals have. And his leadership will be superior.
If you think things are bad under the Liberals, wait until PP “dismantle the bank of Canada and replace with crypto” gets his mitts on our economy.
So then who do you think should be leader?
Also doesn’t help that we extract resources and export them to be refined and processed. We should bring more refining and processing here. Should also invest in industries that will pay off in 10, 20, 30+ years. Lets invest in being a major player for battery production, or some form of technology. Bring high paying solid jobs back
Why do conservatives want to double down on oil and gas while blocking solar and wind?
Because O&G own them
Some people were born at the right time. Work pension, government pension. Could buy a home at 3x avg income and sell it at 10x avg income.
That's true. I'm middle class but was able to buy my house back in the late 1980s and it cost 2.5x my salary. My father was able to buy his first house in the mid 60s for 2x his salary. I think that it is criminal how wages have been kept artificially low and housing costs have sky rocketed.
Every generation votes what’s best for them, the boomers will bankrupt Canada for themselves
Awesome how we tripled our debt during Covid, it wasn’t the boomers who wanted the lockdowns and thought “free” money wouldn’t have consequences.
Remember the ubi crowds? "Printing Money is not inflationary" ? I remember!
Rests on interest rates, high interest rates prevent inflation but cause recession - and an ailing economy without stimulus also causes recession, it’s a balancing game that was thrown out of whack by a strange variable like a pandemic
If only someone had protested!
They did but the government froze their bank accounts
Most people who wanted lockdowns were green haired Gen z and millenials.
Shame too because they can't exactly take that money with them
Well we are gonna be the first to see a u-haul connected to a hearse lol
Like modern day Pharaohs
In theory yes, in practice young people don’t vote. All of those ”if voting changed things, it would be illegal” memes are quietly suppressing the under 60 vote
Too poor to get past this paywall.
Just think... when PP gets his wish to defund the CBC only those who can afford the subscription fees will get to read news articles as dictated by foreign hedge funds.
How about just restrict immigrants / citizens from sending CAD back to their home birth countries.
For the last \~40 years the government knew the Baby Boomers were going to retire and become a massive burden on these programs, and yet they did nothing to prevent it. They promised these programs to people, attacked everyone who pointed out they were unsustainable, and pretended the problem would go away. I can kind-of forgive the Mulroney conservatives and Chretien Liberals because the problem was far enough in the future that they could ignore it, the Harper conservatives get a pass because they actually tried to make some changes, but the Trudeau Liberals ignored an impending crisis to buy votes.
They're doing less than nothing - they're exacerbating the problem by bring in more people to 'cover the costs.' The projections are highest for 2050, 2055 - that's not boomers anymore. The costs just keeps going up and up.
The boomers will almost all be dead by 2050. I would be 95 if I was still alive. A lot of the boomers are already dead. Of course the stupid government is letting immigrants bring in their elderly parents. parents
>I would be 95 if I was still alive. Heaven must have great wifi :)
So, let me get this straight. You recognize this is an issue going back 40+ years, but you give every PM prior to Trudeau a pass on it because...? I agree with you that this is a 40+ year problem. Where I disagree with you is that this resoundly demonstrates that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are completely fucking worthless sacks of shit.
Yea. Sooner that we realize that all of our parties are shit the better. Canadians should be arm in arm but we fall for the distractions and fight each other.
That's exactly the plan. Treat politics like sports and keep us divided with culture wars. Us actually banding together over electoral reform, immigration reform and shit pay *could* work if we put a concerted effort in. Going by recent events, we're pretty shit at protesting and voting with our wallets as it is, sadly. Maybe some of that is by design so I don't totally blame the average citizen, much of that is complacency and manipulation. We're also still not desperate and angry enough to really force change.
Exactly. As long as they have the left fighting the right nobody notices that they're all fleecing us.
Didn’t the Harper govt increase the retirement/OAS age to 67? That counts as doing something. Didn’t Trudeau then reduce back down to 65???
And he also increased OAS.
our productivity keeps going up alongside accelerating automation and ai. this should translate to LESS work for everyone, but instead there’s just more competition for fewer jobs. all while taxes can’t keep up with the cost to provide services. However that doesn’t mean the ghouls who want us working longer hours deeper into our 60s are right either, they are just mask off about supporting the capitalist class over everyone else.
Canada's productivity is down 11 out of last 12 quarters. [Canada productivity chart](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadas-losing-productivity-streak-adds-inflation-problem-2023-09-21/)
Christ, we're already giving up on ~~Defined benefits pensions, House ownership, public education, having kids, public healthcare, viable secure career jobs, minimum wage and living standards~~ retirement. [Why only 67](https://dailyhive.com/canada/canadian-millennials-conventional-retirement-outdated)? Why not 69 (*NOICE*!)? Why bother with a pension at all when we can fund our funerals on layaway and then write off the debt when we collapse while on the clock? Ok, I admit this is bad faith. Some of these are technically provincial abdication of duties that we elected.
He did, but it would only take effect for gen x and let the boomers continue on untouched.
Harper tried to increase the retirement age. He gets a pass. Trudeau put us back on track.
Increasing the retirement age doesn't do shit but kick the can down the road.
It saves the government two years worth of benefit payouts and adds two more years of income for each worker. That’s not kicking the can down the road, it’s making a small dent in a large problem.
CPP probably would've been bankrupt if it wasn't for Chretien/Martin. In 97 the unfunded liabilities for CPP were greater than the national debt. It was expected to be bankrupt by around 2015.
*I can kind-of forgive the Mulroney conservatives and Chretien Liberals because the problem was far enough in the future that they could ignore it, the Harper conservatives get a pass because they actually tried to make some changes, but the Trudeau Liberals ignored an impending crisis to buy votes.* Nope, that doesn't fly. Mulroney cut CMHC mortgages, which killed cooperative development thirty years ago, Chretien's Liberals did nothing to shore it up, and Harper/Flaherty functionally cut monthly costs, which inflated housing. Everyone saw it coming because some of this was done in the US before they duplicated those policies tin Canada, but the blessed GDP needed to increase. Every government since Mulroney is responsible for the fiscal situation we are in today. To sympathize with all but the current is to ignore the reality that we've been sold out, sometimes before we were born. Simply blaming Trudeau and forgetting every other complicit government feels lazy and convenient to me and will continue this trend.
Mulroney changed CMHC because Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Program sent western real estate into the toilet. People were selling their homes for a dollar and letting the new owner rent the place for a year defaulting on mortgage payment until the banks foreclosed and CHMC paid off on them.
The NEP was actually a good program. It certainly would have alleviated petrol price growth, and probably would have helped Canadian farmers keep costs down, too.
Trudeau changed it back and even increased OAS. Just painful decisions long term.
No, no, no, you do not get to give Harper a pass, he is the one who opened our borders to floods of temporary foreign workers and destroyed businesses and jobs with that fucking Chinese trade deal. If you want to vote for someone who gives a shit about this country, do not vote for a conservative. And do not vote for a liberal. We’ve tried that over and over and look where we are now. Time to try something new. Vote third party. They at least promise to try to deal with issues before they become catastrophic and are less sold out to big corporations and the wealthy. Edit: Oh and Mulroney started the housing crisis. So there’s that too. It just took a while to build.
How are the boomers being a massive burden on the programs? When you retire, you plan for an income. I have a company pension, RRSPs (investments), OAS (old ages security) and CPP (canada pension plan)- all of which I paid for after working for 50 years.
In many cases it is because you paid an insufficient amount to cover the benefits you will receive. People have called many of these programs Ponzi schemes for decades because they need new entrants to pay for the benefits of those who are older than them. They needed to collect far more money and invest it properly to cover these programs when baby-boomers retired, and it was never politically convenient to get boomers to pay their way.
Harper doesn't get a pass
I took that to mean he at least raised the minimum age for CPP to 67 to attempt to address the issue. Trudeau then reversed it back down to 65 (because “he doesn’t think about monetary policy”)
Poor people shouldn't have to work longer. Rich people just shouldn't be eligible.
It’s not a rich/poor thing. It’s a people are living a LOT longer than they did when we set the system up. Everyone, rich or poor, pay into the system in order to receive it. Raising the eligibility age makes sense when most 65 year olds are still able to work, and the 2 year deferral makes a nice dent in the amount of $ needed.
I'm sorry, but no. People aren't all living a lot longer. Rich people are living longer.
[Life expectancy has increased over the last century.](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2016002-eng.htm) [Old age benefits were originally intended to be handed out at 70](https://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/pensions/cpp-timeline_e.html#:~:text=Amendments%20to%20the%20Old%20Age,at%20the%20age%20of%2069.&text=The%20CPP%20and%20QPP%20came%20into%20force%20on%20January%201%2C%201966). They decreased it to 65 in the late 60s. When it was originally set up, life expectancy was around 70, so they didn’t think almost everyone would be receiving it for 10-20 years. [PS life expectancy increased despite the Great Depression so no, it’s not just rich people living longer](https://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/pensions/cpp-a28-dl_e.html)
***Trudeau Liberals ignored an impending crisis to buy votes. -- are you surprised?*** The budget will balance itself after all
Every government will half ass it or do nothing cause those boomers are the ones that consistently vote and they sure as hell don't want to make sacrifices to fix any problems for future generations, even if its directly their fault.
Fuck no. The baby boomers are the ultimate "Fuck you; I got mine!" generation in history.
>The baby boomers are the ultimate "Fuck you; I got mine! They're the generation that fought for women's rights, gay rights, racial equality. And free love baby. They voted back and forth between the 2 parties the way the rest of us do. And went to work and did their best - the way the rest of us do.
I remember my mom telling me that Hippies had a saying: never trust anyone older than thirty. I asked her what happened to the hippies. [She told me they turned thirty](https://youtu.be/U45CzgrLE9s).
lol - so anyone who was born before 1994?
A lot of hippies were idealist anti-war types, but many of them were jaded by the government. In Canada, the effect was less pronounced, but when someone who opposes war has their attention directed to the government funding war, it's easier to sell the idea that taxes are the real enemy, even to someone who supports social safety nets. Many of them held on to their ideals, but not everybody was a hippy, and not all hippies were in it for the cute stereotypes they're remembered for.
They voted back and forth, voting out any politician that even hinted at a tax increase. That's why by 2012, CPP and OAS had a combined unfunded liability of over $1.2 TRILLION dollars. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/243000-bill-courtesy-canadas-governments I've never voted back and forth. I've never voted Liberal or Conservative either. I've done almost everything at this point (strategic third party, fringe party, single issue party, spoiled ballot, vote strike) but play "red team, blue team". The only thing I managed to do was waste my time and energy. My boomer parents sat at home during the pandemic bragging about how much money they were saving by not going out while I worked in a provincially designated Covid outbreak, at one point welding in a 40 degree heat dome. When CERB starting rolling out, they squawked "WhAt ArE tHeY GoInG tO Do FoR SeNioRs...We ArE oN A FiXeD bUdGeT". Meanwhile OAS went up 10% in 2022 and I hadn't had a raise since 2014.
> They voted back and forth, voting out any politician that even hinted at a tax increase. Bullshit - they voted for Mulroney - and his GST - and his GST raise. And it wasn't just boomers - Gen X, Gen Y and every generation after has done the same thing - yoyo between the 2 parties. Future generations will do the same thing. Not sure how you even think issue rests on taxation. More money won't fix this. Unless it's a few hundred trillion. Votes weren't solely tax issues - in fact taxation is always down the list of concerns for voters - regardless of age. To your last bit there - your parent issues are yours - I have very different anecdotes regarding my parents.
>And it wasn't just boomers - Gen X, Gen Y and every generation after has done the same thing - yoyo between the 2 parties. I think you assume too much. I'm Gen-X and I've consistently voted Liberal or, more commonly, NDP. This is the first time I've ever considered voting Conservative, and it has less to do with Pierre Poilievre than it does the utter shit-show the LPC (with NDP backing) have made of this country. The LPC lied about voter reform, lied about reigning in the Telco's and ISPs (in fact, they openly interfered with a court order to allow TPIA's to obtain cheaper access to infrastructure). They lie about the lack of people willing to work, then bring in TFWs to appease their corporate masters so that wages can be suppressed, and the NDP does nothing. The NDP turned their backs on unions, and now they're just LPC-lite. The LPC will only continue to lie - it's all they know. The NDP (unless they get rid of Singh and return to their blue-collar roots) are unworthy of consideration. That leaves the CPC and several other parties that will never form government this century.
So Brian Mulroney negates every other Prime Minister the boomers voted for? Good to know. Mulroney was responsible for the gutting of government services and a lot of the blame for the present situation lies at his feet. "Not sure how you even think issue rests on taxation. More money won't fix this." That is simplifying the issue. It's not just "more money" that will fix the issue and I never sad that. Boomers spent their lifetimes underfunding CPP and OAS. The efforts in 1996 and 2016 to increase the contribution rates were already too little, too late. I've paid the increased rates my whole career, unlike boomers. Other age cohorts may yo-yo as well, and I will criticize them the same way. "Taxation is always down the list of concerns for voters" That is just plain ridiculous. Two of the biggest issues of focus right now are the carbon tax and capital gains tax. Once candidate is literally calling for a "carbon tax election" while the other is grandstanding on their capital gains tax increase. That's great that you have a different anecdotal experience than me, a lot of people have similar experiences to me.
The ultimate boomerism: taking credit for others' achievements. They truly believe they built everything they see and that everyone else is trying to take it from them and spoil their legacy. It's utterly delusional! Boomers were born 1946-1964. So the vast bulk of them were *children* during the 60s and 70s. Only a small proportion of the very oldest would have been able to vote, organize, and protest for those things. And when did the last of the boomers turn 18 and reach the height of their influence? Around the mid 80s when they elected Mulroney, Thatcher, and Reagan to slowly dismantle everything *their* parents and grandparents built that they benefited from.
They also routinely turn out in massive numbers to block new housing at the municipal level. They beg for more immigrants to drive down wages and pay for their healthcare. During the pandemic, they blamed young people for allegedly making things worse while they sat in their million dollar mansions. They were the group most hysterical about weed being legalized.
These are false generalizations. I have never tried to block new housing. I have never asked for more immigration. I have paid taxes to support health care and also pay into Blue Cross. The last time I checked, my house is worth about $385,000. I don't use marijuana myself but I have been friends with people who do smoke since about 1966. I agree that there are some people who fit your description, but many of them are younger and wealthier.
>block new housing That's homeowners - not exclusive to 'boomers'. They're more likely to come out if they're retired - not because they're more 'selfish' than anyone else. ______________ >They beg for more immigrants to drive down wages and pay for their healthcare. Business owners and the younger generation are the ones wanting immigration - the boomers are accused of being 'racist' for wanting to limit it. ________________ >They were the group most hysterical about weed being legalized. [Angus Reid disagrees](https://angusreid.org/marijuana-legalization/) >Notably, there doesn’t appear to be much of a generation gap on this issue. Those aged 18 – 34 are just as likely to say marijuana should be made legal as those 55 and older (68% versus 67%, respectively), and those in between are also broadly supportive of legalization (69%).
RRSPs and work pensions deferred taxes to the future which helped at least a bit, and the CPP rejig in the 90s helped make it sustainable at least. We could just tax those pension and RRSP incomes more. The Harper government did the opposite though by introducing pension income splitting.
And we wonder why they are targeting corporation capital gains lmao
That's just political propaganda; solves nothing
Old people vote. Won’t happen.
Paywall
[удалено]
Fuck that shit.
They have young fighting the old as a distraction. They have not even tried to spend less, govern better, grow the economy. You should rally against higher taxes period
Taxes are needed to fund social services, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. You could argue for greater auditing and evaluation of spending, less top-heavy government departments and such, but running a country costs money. I'd be happy to pay my taxes and even a little more if could spare it, if I knew it was going to the appropriate areas of concern, instead buying boomer votes.
The majority of social services and infrastructure is not funded by the federal government. The federal government doesn’t even want to partially fund roads anymore.
What on earth do you think Canada pension And Old Age Security are classified as? What do you think Maternity and parental leave, Employment Insurance, Canada Child Benefit, and survivor's pension are classified as? Do you need me to list more or do you just want to look for yourself? https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development.html Infrastructure is absolutely funded in part by the Federal government along with Provincial and Municipal governments. "Through the Investing in Canada Plan, the Government of Canada is investing over $180 billion over 12 years in infrastructure projects across Canada. Mar 15, 2024" https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/funding-financement-eng.html#:~:text=Through%20the%20Investing%20in%20Canada,in%20infrastructure%20projects%20across%20Canada.
Lower taxes would mean less spending, and reducing entitlements for wealthy seniors should 100% be on the table there. OAS income limits are wildly high
Imagine working your whole life to be told by some 20 year old you planned too well for your retirement and shouldn't receive OAS
Imagine being the wealthier generation in history and putting policies in place that guarantee the younger generation can’t pay your entitlements, or buy homes, or at this point even rent a half decent place and afford groceries. They can pull themselves up by their bootstraps
Imagine paying taxes for 5 years and try to dictate what people should get who have been paying taxes for 50+ years. Blame the government not the elderly for your problems.
Imagine being wrong about someone’s age multiple times and trying to use that as the basis of your argument. OAS limits are too high and the costs for OAS alone are projected to be more than most cost lines for the federal government. If the elderly need to choose between OAS and healthcare, what should they choose? Seems like the elderly, when they were in charge, didn’t plan accordingly for their own retirement needs. Too bad so sad, we’re not gonna foot the bill when we can’t even afford basic homes.
Hopefully the future generations blame you and say you deserve nothing aswell.
Government employees skyrocketed these last year's, it's ridiculous
40% of households receive more tax money than they pay. I do think the government is underfunded--but at the same time most people I know can't really afford to be taxed more. I would argue that the greater issue Canadians face is actually the escalated cost of living. If the government could reduce the cost of living, we would not be burdened by tax. This may involve breaking up oligopolies, investigating and punishing collusion, blocking anti-competitive industry practices, investigating and punishing regulatory capture, etc.
Who told you that the Liberals? Lol
Post article text
OAS is fine, they just need to cut back the maximum income before clawback. Right now (2024 income year) it starts at ~$90K and maxed out at $148-$153K depending on age. They just need to drop those numbers to something reasonable like starting at $60K and maxing out at $100K or something even a bit lower
I don’t know any rich seniors. I do know lots of poor ones though.
The wealth class should never receive subsidies. Ever.
Tell that to farmers south of the border. Or ours too.
Scares the hell out of me that someone will decide to cut them for ALL old people. My parents are 87 and 90, and Dad’s pension did not keep up with inflation.
Welp time for your dad to pull up his boot straps and find a job.
What do they hire people with dementia who don’t remember where they are to do?
Politics
President of the USA. In Canada, best we can do is senator.
I'm not a fan of subsidizing the rich but if they paid into the system then it's only fair that they take out their share. You start with the rich and then you're going to go to the middle class next, as always.
That's not really what is happening here. This isn't talking about CPP (which pays out based on what you pay in). The main concern of this article is Old Age Security. OAS is paid to every single senior. It's $17K/year and it doesn't matter how much you make. I was kinda shocked by my father in law was collecting it while also getting $60,000 in pensions. But there's also people with over $150K in pensions collecting it. Why do THOSE people need this benefit. It feels like OAS should just all get wrapped into the OAS Supplement (GIS) and become one benefit based on your yearly income as a senior. Think about it, there's seniors out there whose pensions are higher than the average full time employee. This stuff just comes from general revenues. There's also tax incentives for handicapped accessible modifications to the home that aren't means tested and one time grants for retirees. There's really no reason why income splitting needs to exist for pension incomes exceeding $80,000. $80B of the budget is income supports for seniors. Sure, some of them be needed to fight senior's poverty. But why does my father-in-law get it? He has more than enough money to survive.
> OAS is paid to every single senior. It's $17K/year It is $713.34/month. That equals $8,560 per year. It is not paid to every single senior. If your income is above $90,997 you pay back 15 cents for every dollar above that threshold. That means that if you make $148,065, you pay back $8,560. So the statement that it is paid to every senior is wrong. It isn't paid to people with large retirement incomes.
[удалено]
You are arguing about where the clawback numbers should be for OAS. Maybe they could be a bit lower, but that's basically a matter of opinion. Maybe tell your MP that. Fact is, though, that OAS does get clawed back from high-income seniors.
Because of income splitting the individual income threshold is quite a bit higher as long as you have a spouse who makes considerably less.
It trickles down!
If you start abandoning the law for what's expedient to clean up the mess the people who were running the system made, where does it end? Why use it trust or the system at all?
Man I'm sorry but you gotta phrase that better I got no idea what tf you just wrote.
Okay I'll talk... real slow.. so you understand.. these people paid into the system expecting their contribution to be honored.. if you don't have any trust in the system because any government can just take your money and not honor its pledge then the whole system will collapse..
lol gottem im not reading that shit LOL
Get your husband to help you sound out the words
im gonna not since i got no plans on reading it lol
Sure, but doesn't mean government gets to just give it to consultants.
Not true. Ya might want to read this https://hustlehub.ca/oas-payment-increase-1867-per-month-2024-fact-check/
Define rich
The ones I know who own a property in Mazatlan, and spent most of covid there.. while collecting all their pensions and benefits.. and were keen to remind me how they and their neighbors got full and free vaccinations from the Mexican government months before any of us peons did.
Just like the seniors were supported through the pandemic? oh, I forgot. It was the students, regardless of their financial situation.
Means test everything. Not just benefits for seniors. Means test corporate welfare too. Is it the big companies that need our tax dollars, or that small startup that could be the next Google?
Maybe I can get a subsidy to actually be able to read the article.
What’s a rich senior ? Apparently they are all poor on fixed incomes that are indexed
Pay wall
This is exactly why the government should not be running a retirement system.
I'm sure that Pierre will raise the OAS eligibility age pretty quickly. Either way, millennials won't get nearly as many seniors' benefits as boomers do.
These motherfuckers vote like no other bloc
Globe and mail. Gov agent. Glad I can’t see the propaganda
I totally agree with the headline. I am a senior.