Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s speech in Davos yesterday signaled changes that may not be palatable to some Conservative supporters who are approaching 65 and counting on OAS to offset decreases in modest private pension plans that were originally constructed with that age of 65 in mind.
The Globe explains after citing the relevant quote:
“We’ve already taken steps to limit the growth of our health-care spending. … We must do the same for our retirement-income system.”
He [PM Harper] said he plans to make Canada’s old-age supplement program sustainable. What that means is unclear. He did not spell out whether seniors will have to wait longer to receive the benefit or whether clawbacks would be increased for higher income earners.
Unlike the Canada Pension Plan – which is supported by a separate and well-financed pool of savings – there is no pot of cash to support the OAS program, which is paid out of government revenues. A recent actuarial report pointed out that the cost of OAS will climb 32 per cent between 2010 and 2015, and OAS payouts to retirees will rise to $108-billion in 2030 from $36.5-billion in 2010…
CTV and others have bandied about the age of 67 as being the new possible age before OAS would kick in.
Is this a trial balloon? If so please kill it now – or else make sure that there is something put in place to rescue seniors who would otherwise suffer in poverty for those two years. It’s not right to pull the rug out from under their feet so abruptly.
One thing for sure: Those seniors would have no money left for such frivolities as let’s say, party contributions.
* * * *
Related
Reluctantly I now provide a link to a Barbara Yaffee column – Time ripe to rein in cushy pensions for MPs, bureaucrats.
Heal thyself first, oh politician.
* * * *
Saturday Update
‘Necessary changes,’ but not imminent – John Ivison:
Mr. Harper’s office responded by issuing an advisory to clear up “media speculation.” “The Harper Government will ensure that seniors maintain ALL the benefits they currently receive. To be clear: there will be no changes to the benefits seniors currently receive,” it read.
Just in case you didn’t get the message first or second time around, it was bludgeoned home a third time. “We will ensure any changes are done with substantial notice and adjustment period and in a way that does not affect current retirees or those close to retirement, and gives others plenty of time to adjust and plan for their retirement.”
Perhaps that point should have been made in the Prime Minister’s speech or pointed out to journalists who have been writing on this subject since the increase in the retirement age was first mooted in this column just before Christmas.
To reiterate – the plan, as I understand it, is to increase the retirement age to 67 from 65 but over an extended period of time, perhaps 10 years – hence, the PMO’s assertion that it will not affect those close to retirement...
What still hasn’t been answered is how John Ivison was first to pick up on this “moot” discussion point. If he’s that prescient he must be doing well in the stock market.
Also please check out Crux of the Matter – PM Harper mentions pension reform in his Davos speech.
Harper must buy the moral authority to change OAS - Corbella, CH:
According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Report on MP Pensions, by Derek Fildebrandt, the $5.80-to $1-taxpayer-to-MP contribution ratio officially reported by the federal government “massively understates the real contribution and payout ratios.”
Indeed, Fildebrandt writes: “This report details how for every $1 that MPs and Senators pay toward the so-called pension fund, taxpayers contribute $23.30.”
In other words, while an MP has to contribute $10,900 annually for six years to receive a minimum backbencher pension, a regular Canadian would need to save $129,000 annually over six years for the same retirement payment.
Harper must tackle this pork barrelling once and for all…
Are they going to bump up retirement age to 67 as well?
Didn’t the McGuinty gov’t get rid of the mandatory 65 retirement age already in Ontario?
Yes, he did. Researched and answered my own question.
I think I’ll wait for the facts before I decide to support or criticize the policy.
Well, that’s probably very wise.
‘What that means is unclear.’
Our media doesn’t miss an opportunity to make PM Harper look heartless, eh.
Any change would likely be incremental and not effect low income Seniors.
That’s my guess, which is just as good as any guess.
Wouldn’t hurt my feelings any if public servants getting over $60k year in pension publicly funded benefits were ‘not’ entitled to their entitlements under the OAS!
In major cities, including Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver, 60K bearly gets you over the poverty line.
Don’t BC and Ontario have supplimentals for Seniors?
I’m sorry to be a contrarian here, but if the PM and his government are going to postpone Canadians getting the OAS until they turn 67, I’m thinking more about how this will help our children and grandchildren and less about how it’s going to affect me and my generation who have been the most fortunate generation quite possibly in the history of the world in terms of job availability when we were younger and full benefits and pension packages.
I’m in a position to comment on this as I’m approaching 65 and changes to the OAS will make a difference to my husband’s and my future plans. OTOH, our children and grandchildren are the ones who are going to have to fund the Boomers’ retirements and health care. Critics are saying this “is a slap in the face” to a generation of Canadians – the Boomers — who have worked hard, etc. OTOH, young Canadians having to shoulder the burden of supporting increasing numbers of retired Boomers and our health care, when far too many of them can’t find steady work with a sustainable income, let alone pension and health care benefits for them and their families, I think it’s myopic in the extreme for people reaching retirement age to rail against these necessary changes.
It’s just too bad that former Canadian governments and PMs didn’t deal with this issue long before this. We’ve known about this demographic problem for decades but no politician would touch it with a ten-foot pole. It may be unfortunate that PM Harper and his CPC government do have to deal with this problem, seeing as it’s staring them full in the face in a world-wide economic downturn — bad management and appalling stewardship, again, on the part of heads-in-the-sand Western governments — but at least they’re proposing proactive remedies, which will mean all of us will have to pull our belts in. Why should future generations have to go without so that we Boomers can continue to live the privileged, often entitled, lives we’ve become accustomed to.
My husband and I have never felt entitled. We’re looking at Freedom 85, as it is — now maybe pushed to Freedom 87 — and rent rather than own a domicile. Our young people are having a rough time establishing themselves in jobs and families, so it ill behooves us to complain about having to wait another two years to receive the OAS. When they reach our age, there may be no OAS. Most of them certainly don’t have the same opportunities most of us had to own a house or make RRSP contributions seeing as we were growing up in a time of plenty. Unfortunately, our governments behaved as though the good times, which have now given way to the bad times, were going to last forever. They haven’t lasted and all of us have to face this reality. I’m very grateful that PM Harper and his government are facing this crisis head-on.
Someone had to do it.
very well said batb.
As a gen-Xer born in 1961 I have never put any faith in any government covering my retirement savings. I have always assumed that by the time I begin collecting OAS it will be clawed back or not there and so as a self employed, no pension worker, I plan accordingly. My retirement savings are however a secondary priority to RESPs for children still in high school. Tax Free Savings Accounts introduced by PM Harper will be a big part of my safety net.
Thanks, Richco.
I hope things in your town are getting back to normal.
slowly batb, thanks for asking. It’s going to take a while but each week we see small victories. Too many here though still tangling with idiot insurance companies and shady contractors. Oh, and those creeps who try to run scams on people when they’re the most vulnerable.
There’s a little excitement here these days as Goderich is trying to become Kraft’s Hockeyville. It’s lifting the spirits of our kids and town too. Folks can vote for us if they want by going to the Kraft Hockeyville website.
Nicely said batb.
I’ve often thought that before a new entitlement for seniors is adopted, or an expansion of existing programs is done, that each and every senior should have to look their kids and their grandkids in the eye and ask them directly. I would prefer that they just directly borrow the money from their kids and grandkids so that they all understand what the government is doing on a national scale.
If this problem was known for decades why did Harper slip this bit of policy into play now? Where is the election mandate to fundamentally change a longstanding program? This is dirty politics. I would never vote for Harper again.
The problem as I understand it is that the program won’t be sustainable unless some kind of gradual measures are taken.
I would suggest it start according to needs even below 65 and then begin at 67 for higher income people that get partly or all clawed back anyway.
That makes sense.
I don’t have a link to support this, but the way I heard John Ivison speculate — and remember, it’s just speculation at the moment, not actual Conservative policy — on changing the retirement age from 65 to 67, that would be phased in gradually, so that people who are 40 now would be preparing for that eventually. I don’t know the actual mechanics of that phasing-in period, but I don’t think people near retirement need to be alarmed.
Of course, the opposition will play on this, knowing that older people and seniors are the ones more likely to vote and tend to be more conservative than other age groups.
Ivison has a new column out on this which I will post shortly in an update.
Harper sought no election mandate for this.
Eventually the fat deficits he’s been running and the gimmicky GST cuts would have to be paid for. This is not how to do it.
Well you will be happy to know that PMSH/Flaherty fat deficits are $9B ahead of schedual for reaching a balanced budget!
And that gimmicky GST cut made the difference between and acutal 9 month recession and a 2 year recession projected by Liberal “experts”
Ahead of which schedule? His original schedule? The first revised and delayed schedule? The second revised and delayed schedule? Or the fourth and most current schedule?
What Harper is very good at is moving the accountability goalposts and claiming victory. That and playing the compliant media like marionettes.
The fact is that the Liberals had the fiscal discipline to balance the budget. Harper is a lousy manager of the nation’s finances.
GST cuts are a gimmick…that’s what Flaherty used to say ehen he was making the deficit in Ontario. Income tax cuts would be better but would be less of a vote getter. Harper’s ambition won out over fiscal prudence.
Wilson, I’m allowing these comments because I think you can hold your own here.
Sounds like Joann is entitled to her entitlements.
I would like to see the MPs and bureaucrats take some of their own medicine first.
That is when I will fully support PMSH
Good suggestion!
o/t
all those experts, including Kevin Page, were wrong and Minister Toews was right:
”…Canada’s prison population is not growing as fast as expected following tough-on-crime legislation, prompting Corrections Canada to abort plans to hire 4,000 new prison guards….”
“… Corrections Canada to abort plans to hire 4,000 new prison guards….”
So critics of the government will probably turn that news around into “See? Harper fails at creating jobs!”
lol, of course!
Hilarious!
Hi Joanne,
Am I caught in the filter? I made a lengthy comment about an hour ago … I like Ruth’s suggestion, some kind of needs assessment (though that grows the bureaucracy considerably).
Governments have known for years that this train was coming down the track and did nothing: thanks, Liberal$. Our young people are having difficulty finding good jobs with any benefits. How can we possibly expect them, who can’t even think of buying a house and are having difficulty affording to start families, to finance the aging Boomers’ retirements and health care costs?
My husband and I are already talking about Freedom 85 — now maybe bumped up/down(?) to Freedom 87 — and don’t expect our young people to have to make all of the sacrifices. The Baby Boom generation has, quite possibly, been the most privileged, most entitled, generation in the history of the world. We can’t keep riding a wave that’s diminished in power, pretending that it hasn’t. We’re going to have to “share” the un-wealth, something with which I have no problem, because it’s only fair.
I admire the CPC government and our Prime Minister for facing this issue head-on, whatever it is they decide. However we go forward from here, there’s going to be some sacrifice and pain because of the world-wide financial downturn. Other governments refused to face facts — no pain, no gain — in order to be re-elected.
The CPC government isn’t so irresponsible.
The filter’s really acting up this morning. Sorry about any delays. And on top of that I’m babysitting today so can’t get to the computer very often.
Yikes, what’s going on? Five minutes ago, my first comment wasn’t showing! Sorry for the mini-repeat …
No problem! It was an excellent comment and well worth repeating, Batb.
BTW here’s a suggestion for anyone who has a really long and particularly well-thought out comment: save it to Notepad or Word. Then if anything goes wrong you can easily repost it.
Also that way you can build up a small archive of your comments; especially if they’ve involved a lot of research. I think Gabby does that and it’s a great idea if you want to pull something up later.
Also, blogs can crash as we’ve all witnessed here.
A massive wave of baby boomers are heading into their sixities and something has to give.
They will stop contributing income tax from their jobs, they will be drawing more money out of their government pension than they put in and the government will also be paying for a huge surge in health care costs. Plus, people are living longer than they did when they decided that 65 was the year of retirement.
Someone has to pay for this. Do we bury the next generation in more debt than we already have?
Do we bury the next generation in more debt than we already have?
Exactly,it’s not fair to the next generation that they should have to pay. If you listen to Michael Campbell,Money Talks on the Corus radio network every Sat morning, he keeps talking about primarily public sector pensions, social programs like health care etc. are what you call “unfunded liabilities,” how we really can’t afford them the way it’s set up now and if we don’t get a handle on them we will go the way of Greece.
I heard on Sunnews say earlier this morning that Tony Clement yesterday said that OAS will not be touched.
I heard on Sunnews say earlier this morning that Tony Clement yesterday said that OAS will not be touched.
Really? That’s pretty definitive.
Somethings indeed will have to give–at every level of government.
Greece was the canary in the coal mine, for western democracies. Plus, look at how Italy’s Berlusconi was uncermoniously dumped, tout de suite, and replaced essentially by an accountant.
The message is pretty well the same now (as it was by the IMF to Chretien in 1995, and Ontario lately, with its reduced credit rating): Bond traders are more and more calling the shots for “sovereign” governments.
Every percentage point that investors demand in yield, when buying government bonds (that HAVE to be sold regularly, to re-finance debt), means many millions more disappears from government coffers, in interest payments. Think of it as McGuinty building more windmills in the middle of Lake Michigan.
Watch the Business News Network, to see the huge amount of importance that is put on the yield on 10 year Italian/Spain/Greek/Portugal/German/etc bonds. Like I’ve said before, Dwight Duncan can’t snow bond traders like he snowed Ontario voters. Flaherty understands this only too well.
Dwight Duncan can’t snow bond traders like he snowed Ontario voters.
Well said. That’s why I wrote a post earlier this month titled “Debt becomes Ontario’s Official Opposition“.
”..(Ontario Health Minister) Matthews clarified her position at a news conference Thursday, but left the door open to having C-sections covered only when they are deemed to be medically necessary…”
interesting eh, perhaps the ‘medically necessary’ rule should apply across the board to all proceedures.
This is the problem with all “entitlements.” As soon as a government, any government, tries to reign things in, all those interested parties start screaming. If Canada’s conservative supporters do that now, we are no better then those in the streets of Greece.
Remember also that when federal programs do not provide, those who are needy can get income support from their provinces/regions. In fact, it was Harris who covered for those over age 60 who needed financial help.
So, let’s keep our powder dry. If changes need to be made to be sustainable, they need to be made.
And, yes, I have a close family member who could be affected. Yet, I would still back the gov’t.
Liberals are always tooting that the Harper Govt won’t take advice from the “experts” (when it serves their purposes to bash Harper),
so what do the Opps think of their ‘experts’ report:
70 should be the new 65 to ease pension crunch: study
Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120126/pension-age-should-rise-to-70-120126/#ixzz1kfnUIJ00
At one time the OAS was clawed back at tax time, with those exceeding the income amount having to pay back their OAS. But, things have changed and if you were in that clawback group, you now don’t get the cheque. This made a lot of seniors very unhappy as they preferred to write one cheque in April. Now a lot of them have to cash in some investment to live. Another drawback is they can no longer brag at the coffee shop that they paid x dollars in taxes. They never did, just had to pay back their OAS.
However, it is very hard on those selling their farms or business, if they were over 65 and discover that for a year they got no cheque.
I really don’t think a lot of seniors would be in poverty if age was raised, but it would have to be done slowly. Someone retirering at 65 today, is a lot different than someone who retired at 65 several years ago.
The problem arises when one spouse dies, and you lose half your income. That is when poverty hits home, especially for women.
A better solution is to apply for the CPP as soon as eligible. The pyments will be less, but you have 5-10 yrs of income to enjoy, rather than hoping you will be healthy and mobile at age 70 to travel etc. And the cheque gets larger every year till you reach 70. And, contrary to popular opinion, you can still be employed if receiving CPP, just tell your boss and your paycheque will be large as you can opt out of contributions. Also saves the boss money, (which he should give you as a raise.)
Good advice Mary T!
What Fat Tony said;
I am 63 retired took the hit on the Canada pension OAS will kick in at 65 I hope.
I have contributed since I was 16 more years at the maximum than not.
I want to see what they are actually proposing before I get excited.
If teachers get what ?% of their best 3 years.
Civil servants get what?
Politicians get a gold plated pension they better start with that puppy.
I am thinking this is the one thing negative from Davos that Media Party could blotivate over.
HM PM Harper told the whole EU to pull up their socks and follow us, we are getting it right. Makes me proud.
Yes PM Harper did a great job at Davos!
Excuse me BC, retirees pay taxes on their retirement funds. The government of Canada invented these social programs to buy votes. Yours it seems. Single payer health care, CPP, OAS were put in place by government and you voted for it all. You didn’t vote to end it. I doubt you will in future.
The fact that these programs were thought to be a sinecure, with minimal attention paid to their viability is typical of government group think. That’s why I, as a a soon to be retiree have saved up additional funds to fund my retirement. You should too.
I was vilified as “greedy”, some sort of “gambler” on barking at governments who skew the markets, interfere in the flows of capital and just meddle in people’s desire to spend or invest their hard earned savings without government interference, SO THAT THEY CAN SAVE SOME EXTRA MONEY FOR THEIR OWN RETIREMENT, without being a burden on society.
So, we drop interest rates to zero, screw with the markets and economy, tinker and tweak the tax code to keep those goodies flowing to special voter blocks and screw the whole system up, so that only the governing “class” have better paychecks and pensions than you ever will and invent new ways to strip you of your hard earned savings to fund them, not you. We are but children to them, they know better than you how to spend your wealth.
They seem to have you convinced that I’m the problem. That’s BOOMER to you and I worked and saved for every dime I own! It didn’t grow on trees. I weathered three recessions, paid higher interest rates on debt than you do now and for far longer, put up with higher taxes, GST, provincial and federal. Double-digit interest rates you whining crybaby! I still managed to save and I invested what I saved wisely to get to where I’m hearing that I’m a drag on your future?
Blow it out your ear.
But what do you really think?
I think I am in the filter too Joanne, thanks.
Some comments seem to be stuck in limbo.
Whiners take note … in Switzerland you are on your own until age 70 (No equivalent to CPP or OAS until 70).
Which would be fine if you had planned for that all along.
While we were raising our children, Chretien took away the family allowance. He tried to do the same with the pension. I remember seniors protesting while young families bore the brunt. I am sure the baby boomers will cope with the readjustment of pension the same way we did with the family allowance. Baby boomers are a hard working pragmatic generation of Canadians. We will quietly grin and bear what is best for the country.
Some interesting “history” here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harpers-retirement-agenda-set-to-open-up-the-battle-lines/article2317234/
Some comments here sound quite angry — maybe it’s just my perception — so imagine how the opposition will spin the notion that some changes to some social programs eventually become inevitable.
BOOMERS never asked to be born by a war torn, postwar population. We are the lost war generation’s replacements. I wasn’t even of voting age when CPP, OAS and state-funded healthcare were voted in. The BOOMER’s parents did. So, I take severe umbrage that boomers are “the problem”.
And noting the boom in population, it was fascile for governments to offer what a collective “retirement fund” and all the goodies our governments dreamt up to buy votes with. UIC, welfare, health care, baby bonus and especially CPP and OAS, which for the longest time was a Peter pays Paul scheme just waiting to blow up in people’s faces when the costs of living (read raising multiple birth families) became prohibitive enough so that mom went out to work, too to pay the damned bills, because government spending exceeded what the economy could produce and birth rates dropped.
To government, that extra paycheck to tax was a boon to more government largess, like government “investments” into auto manufacturing, now “green” energy, education, so that we now have an unemployable, over educated underclass. They even invest funds into “green” activist groups and native bands to lobby – against Canadian energy projects, which generate taxable income. Whose side are they on? Make work for government employees, instead of laying them off. Anyone thinking we BOOMERS never paid our fair share of government mandated largess is dreaming in technicolor.
If I had an option it would have been to opt out of the CPP ponzi scheme and used that money I was forced to donate to invest on my own, with better results. I won’t ever see OAS in my mail box, so I won’t miss it. The fact that even financial planners included OAS in their planning calculations, leads to people planning to take advantage of spending more rather than saving, because they are counting on OAS to make up the difference. To a retired couple that’s close to $13,000 a year to be made up.
Meanwhile taxpaying seniors are funding through their taxes gold-plated MP, MLA, MPP and civil service pensions. MP’s to the tune of $23 for every $1 of MP funding off their self generated paychecks, after 6 years.
So, yeah I get hot under the collar. Sue me.
“BOOMERS never asked to be born by a war torn, postwar population.”
And, by the same token, our children didn’t ask to be born, either.
In our post-Christian, brave new world, we seem to have lost a sense of sharing others’ pain and our moral compass. Let’s face it, the mess we’re in has a lot to do with the idea that we could just continue to get richer and richer using questionable — and sometimes, downright dishonest (Wall Street, Oil for Food Scam, etc.) — means.
Add to this state of affairs, the LIBERAL government’s refusal to put the brakes on unprecedented accumulation of wealth and benefits, particularly in the public sector, and you’ve got a perfect storm.
Did our children ask to be born into this economic cauldron, where the buck has sputtered?
Something else on this … if the government does decide to reform pensions — be they those of MPs, public servants, or those of the general public — they’d better be sure they do a good job of communicating those changes.
For example, yesterday on a talk show, the host, who introduced the topic & thus should have done some research on it, was ranting about the unfairness of a young Conservative MP (very early 30s) being already eligible for his pension, especially since that’s been his only career so far.
Not once did the talk show host mention the MP may be eligible, but he only starts receiving the pension when he turns 55. Political junkies may be aware of such details, but I’d be willing to bet the general public, hearing that conversation, would assume, wrongly, that the guy is not only sitting pretty doing a nothing job — the unfortunate general perception about politicians — and getting a salary but also getting his pension.
if the government does decide to reform pensions — be they those of MPs, public servants, or those of the general public — they’d better be sure they do a good job of communicating those changes.
I agree that communication needs a lot of work.
”..the MP may be eligible, but he only starts receiving the pension when he turns 55….”
there’s a good place to start for reform of pensions
Why 55 and not 65 like the rest of us?
I believe 70 years like the age of retirement in the senate is a good place to begin drawing an old age pension as a parliamentarian.
Why 55 and not 65 like the rest of us?
Exactly!
Good point.
“Whiners” Entitlements”?
Not at all ! when you have paid into a plan for 45 or 50 years I don’t think that is at all helpful or appropiate.
If the pension system needs adjusting it has to done.
Over our lifetimes my wife and I have moved 7 times to enable to take advantage of job opportunities.
We have between us paid into the pension plan for nearly 100 years, our work years are now behind us.
We rode out 3 recessions also I well remember 19.24 % intrest on our mortgage.
Our solution? Pay it down and finally off.
We built homes, rebuilt them, sold them ourselves to save on comissions, raised two fine kids.
We saw the old folks out with dignity.
Managed to save a little for the future, no trips to Tuscany for us.
A new car for us was usually 4-5 years old.
I quit the best paying job I ever had and moved 600 miles to keep my folks in their home for 10 more years.
That meant starting all over again at 40, we did it.
Never asked for or recieved any help.
I see a NDPQ’er and a former Liberal trying to give new Immigrants Canada Pension.
They didn’t get the Libby private members bill through, they tried what? 6 or 7 times?
Anyway this is all conjecture, lets just wait and see what is in store.
I have faith in our PM to do what is right and fair for everyone.
I have faith in our PM to do what is right and fair for everyone.
Good point Bubba.
We did not pay into Old Age Security like we did for CPP. It is harldy more than welfare for poor people meant to top up pensions wher epeiople did not get anything or not enough to live on.
There are lots of ways to reform the systems – delaying retirement – it’s quite recnet that 60 & 65 were such magic nuumbers, Clawback of OAS can start at lower incomes.
Before these changes, others need to be fixed – pensions need to be more fair and somehow more people need to be part of a plan. Public employees and especially MPs & MPPs need to have thier plans sclaed back
Whatever the changes, there will be a transition period. People at 64 will not immediately become ineligible for OAS @65.
Let’s wait for more information.
media party at work again
I will wait for the budget
fh
You are wise. I am not.
Looks like I may have broken another New Year’s resolution eh? (about listening to MSM rumours).
Pingback: PM Harper mentions pension reform in his Davos speech « CRUX OF THE MATTER
I just did a post on this topic. And, in my research, discovered that the age of eligibility for the first OAS type of pension in 1927 was 70 and over. And, they had to have resided in Canada for 20 years (not 10 like it is today). Imagine that. 20 years in the country when most were immigrants. But, the age of eligibility of 70 did change to age 65 until 1970 — just 41 years ago! So, it would not be unthinkable to gradually get back to that age.
http://crux-of-the-matter.com/2012/01/27/pm-harper-mentions-pension-reform-in-his-davos-speech/
Also interesting. It was the Mulroney gov’t who end universality in 1989, in effect only since 1952) with the annual clawback on income tax. But, it was the Chretien Liberal gov’t in 1996 who put an end to all universality — in that how much OAS a senior will receive is decided by the gov’t and cheques sent out accordingly. Some affluent seniors today, for example, don’t receive anything.
So, when the opposition ranting starts, check out some of my links for the actual data.
Interesting… Well I hope to study that at length when the little guy goes back home tonight. Thanks for the digging Sandy.
It does add some perspective.
Missed Mary T’s comment here (http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2012/01/27/freedom-67/#comment-92417).
As our very own tax expert, she said it better than I did!
P.S. Mary T, could you copy that comment and leave it at CotM as some who have commented there don’t think Chretien’s change made any difference. It sure did and it is not just farmers who sell their farms. It is anyone who made $66,000 in the year before they retired — no matter even if they make $25,000 in their first year of retirement. Getting the clawback at the time of doing our taxes was much fairer IMO.
Sorry to bug you Joanne I seem to be in the filter again.
Bubba, I’m not seeing anything in the filter at this time. Do you think you could try reposting it? Thanks.
Looks like the usual hit and run wet our pants wafer gaffer Friday headline thingy.
I went on CBC Icck! anyway a link to Krafty Kady line 4 seems to be the pertinent one.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2012/01/pmo-infoalerte-watch-so-about-that-old-age-security-media-speculation.html
I need a shower now LOL
Thanks for taking one for the team Bubba. This part is encouraging:
Pingback: Freedom 67? « Newsbeat1
You have to know the MSM and the Opps will pounce on this one before doing their homework. They have nothing else substantive to offer and they really can’t go with anything too positive on the PM.
Thing is, after they spew incomplete facts and outright falsehoods they never go back to correct or retract. That’s our job and the Party’s to take on apparently.
Yah!! calling Kevin Page, you were wrong.
Tho the media/Opps will surely turn this into something negative.
”…The Finance Department reported Friday that November’s shortfall totalled $1.9 billion, well shy of the $4.5 billion of red ink penned during the same month last year.
The bigger story is that for the first eight months of the 2011-12 fiscal period that ends in March, Ottawa is about $9 billion to the good of where it stood last year. As of November the deficit stood at $17.3 billion compared to $26 billion for the same period in 2010…”
Tho the media/Opps will surely turn this into something negative.
Or they’ll just ignore it.
He wouldn’t pull the rug out from under the feet of those on the verge of retirement.
But anything short of that is too little too late.
The baby boomers have already started turning 65. Any grandfathering and easing into is going to miss the rest of them altogether.
So we end up with the worst of all worlds: we have to pay for their entitlements, there is no real savings during the costliest period, but we don’t get any similar treatment.
Nice.
Well that’s a fair point but I guess the devil’s in the details as always.
Going out for a while. Comments may get stuck. Will check later.
I’m gonna take a wild guess that one of the changes to OAS will be the amount of time required to be in Canada, which as Sandy stated is 10 years, will be increased to possibly 15 years. This allows an immigrant to Canada to pay into the tax system longer, thereby lowering the costs when said individual begins recieving OAS.
And oh yah, with all the tongue bathing the msm is giving Bob Rae and the Liberal Party, I’m guessing this will be brought up once the full details are out:
“Bill C-428 will allow recent immigrants to apply for OAS in 3 years instead of the existing 10.
This bill had first reading in the house on June 18, 2009. It was seconded by Bob Rae!! MP Ms. Ruby Dhalla who introduced the bill represents the riding of Brampton whose population is mainly East Indian. Right now you have to have lived in Canada for 10 years in order to qualify for Old Age Security. She wants the time reduced to 3 years. Thousands could come to Canada when they are 62 years old, never having worked or contributed to this county’s tax system etc, and qualify for full Old Age Security benefits. 10 years minimum is reasonable. 3 is not!”
Good point Paul. Another Bob Rae truth ad just waiting to be made? Check out this comment in response to someone who wanted clarification with what Mulroney did compared to Chretien — gist for another truth ad as well about who really removed the universality of the OAS.
http://crux-of-the-matter.com/2012/01/27/pm-harper-mentions-pension-reform-in-his-davos-speech/#comment-4832
The current eligibility for OAS is very difficult in the first two years because of what Chretien did. If you were 65 last month in December and retired at the end of the month, it will be your taxable income for 2011 that will be used to determine how much you get in OAS in 2012. Now, think about that. It was your last year working so of course, your income is high. Meaning, tons of people don’t receive a red cent until the second year of retirement — once their taxes are done for 2012 which shows what they actually receive in income while retired.
Yet, a don’t hear the media complaining about that unfairness and inequality! Trouble is you have to be 65 to know about it!
Wilson, you should know better and are usually up on these things but Public Servants do not get cpp or oas. Its clawed back from their public Service Pension Plan. Itsthe way its always worked. We contribute to cpp our entire careers but don’t get it. Currently my CPP biweekly deduction is only $30 less than my pension deduction. The way CPP use to operate, Public Servants could get CPP (lesser amount) starting at age 60 and then at 65 they lose it when the retire.
You will still retire better and faster than anyone in the private sector who contributes 50/50 if they even have a company pension and it’s based on their yearly income. Retiring early is generally forced and they are subsequently faced with a devastating 50% loss because their highest earning years are in their final years.
These people are out trying to get jobs in their late 50′s, early 60′s. They have not been given the famous ‘golden handshake’ of days gone by and they have had their retirement dreams shattered.
I know many govt of Canada and provincial employees that are enjoying their late 50′s and early 60′s investing in USA property foreclosures and take several winter vacations. Their combined RETIREMENT income is more than the high single earning family…..mid 6 figure.
So I am in the camp that are wondering what the heck will happen to the people who worked all of their lives (way before RRSP’s) and are dealing with these questions.
Having said that, this PM won’t abandon those but he may rein in the Seniors that feel they should get all of the gravy too.
Bec, I exactly have a friend who worked for the feds since the early ’70s and who retired at 55, with a house, a cottage, a boat, and umpteen holidays to sunny climes. Throw in no kids and he and his partner live the Life of Riley, and will probably live another 20 years. These kinds of entitlements are killing the system, because the system when it was set up didn’t anticipate longer life spans and new and very costly medical interventions now possible.
I admire PM Harper and his government for pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes — and that he’ll have even less if the present payouts continue. Thanks to the never-shut-up, media-whore, do-nothing Liberal$ who had 13 years of majority government, which was plenty of time in which to begin to face this demographic problem, the CPC has been stuck with having to come up with some long-term solution to the huge number of aging Boomers in combination with fewer younger people contributing to our pensions and benefits.
It’s a no-brainer, actually. This situation has to be dealt with and there’s no way that there won’t be some sacrifices that have to be made. When a family runs out of money before the end of the month, beer or Coke and popcorn for a few weeks instead of steak and wine. One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist or an economist to figure this out.
T-roy: Public servants do not lose their CPP when they retire. Moreover, public servants do not have a clawback per se either and they most definitely do get a CPP pension.
Rather, what happens is what happens to all of Canada’s public sector pensioners. On your 65th birthday, the amount you will get on your CPP is automatically deducted from your pension using an incredibly complicated formula.
It is possible that private sector pensions have this so-called CPP Co-ordination as well. Anyone in that situation who can explain?
The government and the pension boards conveniently calls it the CPP Pension Co-ordination or the CPP Reduction.
What it means is that even though you pay into your CPP and pension all your working life, you lose the amount you will receive on your CPP.
For teachers who retire before they are 65, it is a huge shock to suddenly get a pension cheque that is $700-$800 less than you got before you were 65.
However, since you still get your CPP deposited in the month you turn 65, in effect, you end up even with a similar amount you got before 65.
Of course, if you started your CPP at age 60, then it is a huge deducation at age 65 because the amount of CPP is a lot less when taken early.
Anyway, that co-ordination (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/pensions/crprfp-cpspp01-eng.asp) has been going on a long time and is just way for pension plans to pay less.
In other words, while you do get a reduced public sector pension, you also get a CPP benefit.
However, I am sure not complaining because public sector pensions are the best there is and are indexed to inflation.
Hope that explains things. There is more at this Google page. http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&cp=44&gs_id=3t&xhr=t&q=public+sector+pensions+and+CPP+co-ordination&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=public+sector+pensions+and+CPP+co-ordination&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=49b737aa4a490573&biw=1600&bih=652
In summary then, at age 65, a public sector pensioner gets the amount of their CPP deducted from their pension but they still get their CPP benefit. As the saying goes, been there and done that!
Joanne –Sorry if I repeated myself in a few places at 11:02am but I kept losing the comment text box and had to start over. Yet, it seems all of what I wrote did get posted.
No worries Sandy!
Earlier someone mentioned the family allowance, and how the govt took it away from families with excess income to qualify. Who remembers when it was a whole 5.00/mo, and went up a dollar or so as your child aged. And who remembers all the door to door salesmen selling vacuums, sets of encyclopedias, pots and pans and even sewing machines, all with contracts to pay for them with that FA cheque. Never fell for any of them. What ever happened to those door to door guys.
What ever happened to those door to door guys.
They turned into telemarketers.
“What ever happened to those door to door guys.”
I was going to sy Quebec advertising execs.
In Ottawa Citizen Opinion I noted a Susan Riley headline: “Harper wins when voters snooze” if anyone wants to read it!
I wouldn’t recommend it except to note her weekly service message for the Liberal Party is even more blatantly biased then usual. It generated 44 comments, most of which point out the absurdity of her arguments that PMSH doesn’t really represent a majority of Canadians, the old 39% routine.
It’s amazing the msm is expending so much time on something not formally announced or even verified by the government. Obviously there needs to be changes as the system for OAS won’t be financially stable in the coming years. But there are other ways the government can look at to achieve savings.
1. Lower the threshold for clawback.
2. Increase the time required in Canada for qualification.
3. Cap or freeze increases in the OAS amount.
Of course there are lots of other things the usual msm idiots will never mention. Things like lowering the gst helps low-income and seniors. Lower income tax rates. And the government allowing income-splitting for seniors has resulted in savings far greater than the max OAS amount.
The income splitting helped a lot of people, it was major to many retirees, it’s a good news item that the media refuse to talk about as such.
The nattering negativity from the MSM is their modus operandi and it will continue as long as we have a Conservative government.
Yes excellent point about income-splitting.
And today we have Stephen Maher praising Mulroney and Chretien for everything good about Canada and blaming the PM for all the bad stuff.
Of course Maher is one of the biggest crybabies in the Canadian media, whining when anyone calls him on his b.s. Of course his latest rant doesn’t allow for comments again, probably because he gets his arse handed to him whenever intelligent people have a chance to give an honest rebuttal of his tripe.
I do not know if any of you heard Brian Lilley last night. He started his editional with a shocker-I have to admit, but then I realize he was imitating the opposition’s scare tactics re-to the OAS. Besides, the NDPQF(france) have come out already to denounce the government’s upcoming budget and would not vote for it.
Pingback: When will I learn? | Blue Like You
“Whatever happened to all those door to door guys”?
They are now called “Her Majesties Loyal Opposition”
Tin Men/Women all.
Either that or they are wearing Poley bear suits and occupying your town square.LOL
Seriously income splitting has been huge for us.
The RDSP or Registered disability savings plan enables us to put money away for our disabled son so he will not be impoverished after we no longer here able to help him.
There are many areas in Government that need scrutiny.
How the late Jack Layton and Oliva Chow were able to run expenses of over a million a year besides their generous salaries is something I sure would like to see looked at.
I have heard that showing up and claiming refugee status gets one around 3000 a month any one here know about that?
People lie their way in here and 10 or 20 years later they are still here demanding their entitlements, think Khadars.
All those years of Liberal Largess have come home to roost, the 300 pound gorilla in the room.
Just imagine if the Green Shift or Kyoto which the Liberals just loved would have done to our Country.
The Left whether NDPQ-F or Liberal still want to shut down the economic engine of Canada to please the tin-foil hat wearing enviro-nutz RADICALS and Holly-weird aging “stars” along with the faux charitable organizations that don’t pay taxes but want “to put a price on carbon”?
A plague on all their tax-free mansions
RE: the Ivison column cited by Joanne, especially this part:
“We will ensure any changes are done with substantial notice and adjustment period and in a way that does not affect current retirees or those close to retirement… Perhaps that point should have been made in the Prime Minister’s speech …”
Actually, it was. From the PM’s speech in Davos:
“As I said earlier, one of the backdrops for my concerns is Canada’s ageing population. If not addressed promptly this has the capacity to undermine Canada’s economic position, and for that matter, that of all western nations, well beyond the current economic crises. …
… For this reason, we will be taking measures in the coming months, not just to return to a balanced budget in the medium term, but also to ensure the sustainability of our social programs and fiscal position over the next generation. …
… For those elements of the system that are not funded, we will make the changes necessary to ensure sustainability for the next generation while not affecting current recipients. …”
I thought the same thing Gabby. It is the media that didn’t pay attention with their sky is falling rhetoric. As usual.
Well that certainly is encouraging but I took it to mean that anyone already receiving OAS need not worry which is great. However what about those a few years away? In any case thanks for that quote, Gabby. I’m going to have faith that Prime Minister Harper will make this a very gradual change.
For both Joanne & Sandy:
Another criticism the usual suspects have brought up — I exclude John Ivison, whom I find balanced by & large, although I don’t necessarily always agree with his take on things. I don’t sense he’s out to get the PM, like some others do. My pointing out what the PM said is not intended as a criticism of your take on Ivison’s column, Joanne. It’s just that I always like to check what the person cited actually said, rather than rely solely on what he/she reportedly said.
Anyway, what the usual suspects have brought up is why the PM talked about domestic issues while abroad. I guess it never occurred to them that by touting Canada’s relatively good position, he was encouraging his international audience to recognize their own current & much more severe problems and how to deal with those problems. In other words, follow Canada’s example.
All fair points Gabby. Thank you.
I agree that it’s very wise to go back and research what the person actually said as well as the context rather than relying on a third party.
And as you pointed out PM Harper did use the phrase “over the next generation.”
I appreciate your sober, second thought – as always.
Pingback: Newt Gingrich, GOP & U.S. liberal media’s politics of destruction « CRUX OF THE MATTER
Pingback: Sharing the pain | Blue Like You