Seniors don't want to give up money for younger gen: poll


Spade
+3
#271
What us old timers don't have now that old timers had 50 years ago:

1. Free transit passes
2. Cigarettes for $0.35 a pack
3. A round of golf for $5.00 or less
4. Sunday-go-to-meeting shoes for less than $20.00
5. Haircuts for $2.00
6. A full meal with desert for a buck.
7. A newspaper for a nickel
8. Strontium-90 in their milk
9. Water from the community well
10 A sense of humour

These are tough times for seniors
 
#juan
+1
#272
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

No, not at all. I've seen how your generation measured up. You created a cradle to grave security blanket and stuck your descendants with the bill. I understand you seniors are proud of that accomplishment. It's the main reason you deserve so much ridicule.

Our "security blanket" is our savings and investments that we have paid into for the last thirty years or so plus the fact that our home is paid off. My son and his wife put off having children until their mortgage was paid off. With both of them working it took them six years. We now have two grandchildren who have always had their mom at home.
It is possible to make yourself a comfortable retirement. You just have to work at it. I'm proud that at seventy two, I am not a burden to anyone and I don't think I deserve ridicule from the likes of you.
 
Niflmir
+3
#273


I love hearing the: I started with nothing and got this far argument. For your information, that comic is entitled, "More than nothing".

Those people just don't get it. Times have changed. About 30 years ago, plenty of jobs didn't even require a high school education. Now a basic college degree is all but a requirement for most jobs, and unlike many places, Canadians don't get a free education.

By the time most Canadians look for work, they have the equivalent of a small mortgage that they cannot declare bankruptcy from and nothing to show for it in relation to someone who just graduated from high school 30 years ago.

This society is part of the legacy that the past generation has given to us. If it is in such a sorry state of affairs that austerity measures must be put in place, I don't think it unjust that the people who created this situation be given part of the burden.
 
Cannuck
+2
#274
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Our "security blanket" is our savings and investments that we have paid into for the last thirty years or so plus the fact that our home is paid off. My son and his wife put off having children until their mortgage was paid off. With both of them working it took them six years. We now have two grandchildren who have always had their mom at home.
It is possible to make yourself a comfortable retirement. You just have to work at it. I'm proud that at seventy two, I am not a burden to anyone and I don't think I deserve ridicule from the likes of you.

You are missing the point.

epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301...008/50-eng.pdf (external - login to view)

Page 9

33 billion dolars a year to service a debt that the seniors created and stuck their kids and their grandkids with. The security blanket was the social programs your generation benefitted from without paying for. You are simply fooling yourself when you suggest that you aren't a burden to anyone. Do you honestly believe the extra tax dollars your kid's generation pays to service the debt your generation created isn't a burden to them?

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

So you are bellyaching about a seniors discount?

Of course not. I'm merely pointing out that it exists thereby disproving the nonsense spewed by seniors that the younger generations aren't suppoerting them. As I've said before, the evidence clearly shows that seniors are a financial burden to the younger generations and not the other way around. Since seniors in general do not appreciate what the younger generations are doing for them, it is rather funny that they like to throw around terms like ingrates when referring to their children.
 
mentalfloss
#275
New Canadians more likely to belong to "Sandwich Generation" and to feel related financial pressure

TORONTO, Dec. 15, 2011 /CNW Telbec/ - Of the new Canadians who reported providing daily care for their parents in Desjardins Financial Security's (DFS) most recent health survey, 71 per cent admitted to feeling a related financial impact, compared to 61 per cent of all respondents who provided daily support.

The survey also found that 20 per cent of those respondents who were born outside Canada were more likely to be members of the "Sandwich Generation" — adults who provide personal and financial support to their parents and children simultaneously — compared to seven per cent of all respondents.

"Most Canadians are finding it difficult to make ends meet. But these results are showing us that immigrants are feeling particularly overwhelmed because they're balancing more than the average Canadian," said Reh Bhanji, regional sales manager of the Wealth Management and Life and Health Insurance division at Desjardins Group. "The 'Sandwich Generation' may be a new phenomenon in North America, but it's not for many new Canadians — it's life. They're juggling the challenge of establishing roots in a new country, raising a family and caring for elderly parents, all within a very tight budget."

Having a plan is essential

Despite their financial difficulties, those who had immigrated to Canada less than five years ago were more likely to have a plan with their parents to provide for their care (40 per cent compared to 18.9 per cent overall).

"It's encouraging that many new Canadians have plans in place to care for their families," said Bhanji. "However, there are many who are still struggling financially. Working with a financial advisor can help rebalance the plan to ensure that your family's financial security is assured while providing your parents with the care that they need."

About the Survey

SOM Surveys, Opinion Polls and Marketing conducted this Web survey on behalf of Desjardins Financial Security from August 10 to 23, 2011. In total, 3,120 questionnaires were completed with a sample of Canadian Web panellists aged 18 to 64 years old. The data was weighted to reflect the distribution of the Canadian population aged 18 to 64 years old in terms of gender and mother tongue distributions in 14 regions (Atlantic Provinces, Montreal CMA and elsewhere in Quebec, Toronto CMA and elsewhere in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Calgary CMA and elsewhere in Alberta, Vancouver CMA and elsewhere in British Columbia). The data was also weighted to reflect the population distributions in terms of the joint age-gender distribution and the proportion of adults who live alone in Quebec, Ontario and elsewhere in Canada.

About Desjardins Financial Security

Desjardins Financial Security, a subsidiary of Desjardins Group, the leading cooperative financial group in Canada, specializes in providing life insurance, health insurance and retirement savings products to individuals and groups. Every day over five million Canadians rely on DFS to ensure their financial security. DFS employs over 4,000 people and administers 27.7 billion in assets from offices in several cities across the country including Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City, LÚvis, Halifax and St. John's. For more information, visit the website at www.desjardinsfinancialsecurity.com (external - login to view).

DESJARDINS FINANCIAL SECURITY | New Canadians more likely to belong to "Sandwich Generation" and to feel related financial pressure (external - login to view)
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#276
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Of course not. I'm merely pointing out that it exists thereby disproving the nonsense spewed by seniors that the younger generations aren't suppoerting them. As I've said before, the evidence clearly shows that seniors are a financial burden to the younger generations and not the other way around. Since seniors in general do not appreciate what the younger generations are doing for them, it is rather funny that they like to throw around terms like ingrates when referring to their children.

You are supporting them by choice. You could visit only establishments that do not offer seniors discounts. Perhaps you should also boycott those restaurants providing kids menus as clearly this is subsidizing those who are below 12. They should have to pay their own way!
 
Cannuck
#277
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

You are supporting them by choice. You could visit only establishments that do not offer seniors discounts. Perhaps you should also boycott those restaurants providing kids menus as clearly this is subsidizing those who are below 12. They should have to pay their own way!

Why would I want to boycott the establishments? I have no problem supporting the senior population. I'm simply explaining the realities of the world we live in and throwing cold water on the idea that seniors look after their kids and their kids are ungrateful. The truth is that the exact opposite is true.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#278
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Why would I want to boycott the establishments? I have no problem supporting the senior population. I'm simply explaining the realities of the world we live in and throwing cold water on the idea that seniors look after their kids and their kids are ungrateful. The truth is that the exact opposite is true.

What a warped way to look at things.

I am supporting the single welfare mom who can't get a job to support her 5 kids. I am supporting all types of unemployable people. I am supporting people who are a few bricks short of a load in various mental facilities. I am supporting those who get cancer or other illness or accident requiring medical care. And I am supporting *******s like Paul Bernardo enjoy a lifetime of free room and board.

Thats the way our society works. Those that can pay for those that can't from their taxes. Its not perfect. Certainly I would like to see a few of these leeches released from the public trough. But the alternative is an everybody for oneself version of capitalism which I cannot support. You may desire it but I am very scared of what type of Canada we would become.
 
Cannuck
#279
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

But the alternative is an everybody for oneself version of capitalism which I cannot support. You may desire it but I am very scared of what type of Canada we would become.

You aren't very quick on the uptake are you? Absolutely nothing I have said suggests I desire an "everybody for oneself version of capitalism". In fact, in my post you responded to, I specifically stated that I have no problem supporting the senior population. I'm merely pointing out that I do (contrary to what the seniors will admit)
 
#juan
+2
#280
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Why would I want to boycott the establishments? I have no problem supporting the senior population. I'm simply explaining the realities of the world we live in and throwing cold water on the idea that seniors look after their kids and their kids are ungrateful. The truth is that the exact opposite is true.

The premise of this topic is sounding more and more like horse sh-t all the time. Both my children went to university. We provided tuition
and room and board while they were going to university. They both found part time jobs that paid for books and spending money. I know I spent over twenty six thousand dollars for tuition for the two of them. It's hard to put a value on room and board but five or six hundred a month seems to be
the going rate but we didn't charge them. As a result of our efforts both my kids earn a good living and pay more taxes than if they hadn't
gone to college. We certainly gave up money for our younger generation. I have no reason to think that our children are ungrateful nor do I expect them to be forever in our debt. We are a family.
 
mentalfloss
#281
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

The premise of this topic is sounding more and more like horse sh-t all the time. Both my children went to university. We provided tuition
and room and board while they were going to university. They both found part time jobs that paid for books and spending money. I know I spent over twenty six thousand dollars for tuition for the two of them. It's hard to put a value on room and board but five or six hundred a month seems to be
the going rate but we didn't charge them. As a result of our efforts both my kids earn a good living and pay more taxes than if they hadn't
gone to college. We certainly gave up money for our younger generation. I have no reason to think that our children are ungrateful nor do I expect them to be forever in our debt. We are a family.

Your children are the exception.
 
TenPenny
#282
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Your children are the exception.

They are? The exception seems to be a pretty major chunk of the population.

All 6 of my nieces and nephews went to school, and live on their own with careers or are finishing degrees.
 
talloola
+1
#283
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post


This thread is about seniors not being keen on giving up publicly funded services, from the OP. It's not about anyone stealing anyone's money...you older folks keep referencing when you were young...it's not the same at all. It's apples and oranges in almost every conceivable metric. Demographics, what more needs to be said about that? You could get a good job with a high school education, we cannot. Manufacturing jobs that could raise a family were plentiful, now they are not. The cost of post-secondary education was much lower. Just since 1981 for instance, in your country the cost of a university degree has risen six fold, while the CPI increased only 2.5 times. Housing prices are astronomical. A twenty-five year old college graduate isn't living at home because they want to...my generation has the same goals, a house, a family, except it looks like years before we'll be able to afford any of that. I think I'm probably the exception in some cases, because I'm a cheap bastard who doesn't own a cell phone, or any iApple gadgets. Hell, I won't even pay the farmer down the road to remove snow from my driveway because I'm such a cheap bastard. I'd rather break my back for 45 minutes every morning than pay money which could be used to invest or pay down more debt.
I'd like to hear from any of those who seem to think my generation wants to steal from you, just exactly what you mean by that. I've paid my way through...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
I had fine marks when in highschool in the fifties, but there is no way I could ever have gone to university, didn't
even give it a second thought, far too expensive, and not a student loan in sight, no such thing, therefore
I left school and settled for office work, secretarial etc.
If I hadn't decided to marry, then I could have saved and possibly gone to night school.

The point is: university was not available for the average middle class person, and especially me who
was at home with a mother who worked, a divorced mom.

My grandson as we speak is going thru a job shop program, and has been picked to participate in an
apprentice program in the construction trade, and he's hoping to specialize later on and become an
electrician. He graduated last spring, and this opportunity allows him to make the transition from school
into the work force. He is at the genius level with school marks, but very quiet and finds it difficult
to just go out there and do it, this course helps him in that respect.

Just as I couldn't, he can't go to university because of finances not being available, so he is making
this effort to move forward.

When our daughters were growing my husband worked two jobs for some time so that we could afford to
buy a house and also raise our kids 'right'.

We don't owe an opology to anyone ever, for the kind of life we had and are having. 'One should never
generalize' on subjects like this, it is inconsiderate and inaccurate, there are all kinds of people who
are greedy and take take take, and those who manage within their means, and each generation will have
all of the types of humans there is, and life will continue with the gimmie, gimmie, lazy lazy and the
hard workers, and we have no control over anything else, so the whining should be to the government, not
to people like ourselves and most others.

When we pass on, our daughters will divide up our assets from our estate which will help them as they
move thru life. We have never been wealthy, but did work hard to build a house, took a long time, but
we got it done, should we feel guilty because we had a house of our own, give me a break.

We can't do anything about 'how' life was during our lifetime, and neither can anyone else, during theirs.
That is the way the cards are dealt, suck it up and figure it out, just like we had to, and many before
us.
 
Niflmir
#284
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

We can't do anything about 'how' life was during our lifetime, and neither can anyone else, during theirs.
That is the way the cards are dealt, suck it up and figure it out, just like we had to, and many before
us.

Sure, but you can take an honest look at how things are now and realize that maybe, just maybe, the government squandered the taxes people paid in the past and those people need to be willing to accept cuts to the benefits they have.

The tax money wasn't saved by the government. It was spent on the premise that there would be more than enough tax money in the future to pay for everything, but--lo, and behold--there isn't enough money. Demanding that all the programs for seniors paid for by current tax payers stay the same is just being ignorant to the way things are now and playing dumb to the fact that the government already spent the tax dollars of the past.
 
Goober
#285
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Sure, but you can take an honest look at how things are now and realize that maybe, just maybe, the government squandered the taxes people paid in the past and those people need to be willing to accept cuts to the benefits they have.

The tax money wasn't saved by the government. It was spent on the premise that there would be more than enough tax money in the future to pay for everything, but--lo, and behold--there isn't enough money. Demanding that all the programs for seniors paid for by current tax payers stay the same is just being ignorant to the way things are now and playing dumb to the fact that the government already spent the tax dollars of the past.

We have to get our fiscal house in order - Clawback on pensions are set at a high rate of income, civil service pensions are higher than the private sector, wages as well. Medicare has to change but no one has the balls to start.
 
petros
#286
3 words you are going to keep hearing for the next few years. Infrastructure, infrastructure and infrastructure.
 
JLM
+1
#287
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

The premise of this topic is sounding more and more like horse sh-t all the time. Both my children went to university. We provided tuition
and room and board while they were going to university. They both found part time jobs that paid for books and spending money. I know I spent over twenty six thousand dollars for tuition for the two of them. It's hard to put a value on room and board but five or six hundred a month seems to be
the going rate but we didn't charge them. As a result of our efforts both my kids earn a good living and pay more taxes than if they hadn't
gone to college. We certainly gave up money for our younger generation. I have no reason to think that our children are ungrateful nor do I expect them to be forever in our debt. We are a family.

Can't you tell by the avatar the man is an idiot?
 
Niflmir
#288
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

We have to get our fiscal house in order - Clawback on pensions are set at a high rate of income, civil service pensions are higher than the private sector, wages as well. Medicare has to change but no one has the balls to start.

By the time I retire, I figure the CPP will have completely folded. Actually, I figure it will probably come to an end long before that.
 
JLM
#289
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

What us old timers don't have now that old timers had 50 years ago:

1. Free transit passes
2. Cigarettes for $0.35 a pack
3. A round of golf for $5.00 or less
4. Sunday-go-to-meeting shoes for less than $20.00
5. Haircuts for $2.00
6. A full meal with desert for a buck.
7. A newspaper for a nickel
8. Strontium-90 in their milk
9. Water from the community well
10 A sense of humour

These are tough times for seniors

11. Freedom from incessant whining.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Since seniors in general do not appreciate what the younger generations are doing for them, it is rather funny that they like to throw around terms like ingrates when referring to their children.

Oh yeah, and just exactly what is it the youngsters are doing for the seniors besides running up bills?

I see we are getting some more of our friend "Bob and Weave"!
 
Cannuck
#290
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Oh yeah, and just exactly what is it the youngsters are doing for the seniors besides running up bills?

Do we really have to go over the entire thread again?
 
DaSleeper
#291
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

11. Freedom from incessant whining.



Oh yeah, and just exactly what is it the youngsters are doing for the seniors besides running up bills?

I see we are getting some more of our friend "Bob and Weave"!

You mean......that's him????

Bob and Weave - YouTube

 
JLM
#292
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I have no problem supporting the senior population.


Bob and weave

Actually if anyone is to blame for the way things are in the country today, it's not the average lunch bucket toting wage slave, but two rather affluent fellows by the names of Trudeau and Mulroney!
 
Cannuck
#293
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Actually if anyone is to blame for the way things are in the country today, it's not the average lunch bucket toting wage slave, but two rather affluent fellows by the names of Trudeau and Mulroney!

Nope. They could not get elected nor re-elected without the support of the people. Your generation sure loved your perks.
 
JLM
+1
#294
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Do we really have to go over the entire thread again?

Not on my behalf...................how many times do people like myself and Bear have to keep repeating the same stuff for you to get it through your head?

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Nope. They could not get elected nor re-elected without the support of the people. Your generation sure loved your perks.

And you don't?
 
Niflmir
+1
#295
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Bob and weave

Actually if anyone is to blame for the way things are in the country today, it's not the average lunch bucket toting wage slave, but two rather affluent fellows by the names of Trudeau and Mulroney!

No, I don't agree with that, at least Mulroney. The GST was quite the cash cow for a while. From the numbers I saw, the reason our patrons on Parliament Hill are running a deficit is because they slashed it. Chretien was running a surplus for a good many years until the sponsorship scandal got the conservatives in power. Apparently hemorrhaging money is what the current Conservatives think a government should do.
 
Goober
#296
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Nope. They could not get elected nor re-elected without the support of the people. Your generation sure loved your perks.

Every generation wanted more from the Govt - Trudeau to Mulrooney - all gave us a huge debt. Guess you never voted for a wining Govt during that period? Or did you?
 
Cannuck
#297
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Every generation wanted more from the Govt - Trudeau to Mulrooney - all gave us a huge debt. Guess you never voted for a wining Govt during that period? Or did you?

No. I voted for Clark in the first election I was able to vote in. My only reason was that he wanted to balance the budget. After that, I couldn't in all consciousness vote in any election until Manning came along (I think I may have voted for an independent in one election). I would have voted Liberal to keep Chretien/Martin in power (when they were producing balanced budgets) if it would have made a difference but Monte Solberg was winning our riding by a country mile.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Not on my behalf...................how many times do people like myself and Bear have to keep repeating the same stuff for you to get it through your head?

All you seem to be repeating is that you think people are stupid. I'm sure we all get that.


Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

And you don't?


perk definition


  1. n.
    an extra financial benefit; a monetary inducement or reward. (From perquisite. See also benies (external - login to view).) : I don't get paid much, but the perks are good.
What perk would you be referring to?
 
JLM
#298
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

No. I voted for Clark in the first election I was able to vote in. My only reason was that he wanted to balance the budget. After that, I couldn't in all consciousness vote in any election until Manning came along (I think I may have voted for an independent in one election). I would have voted Liberal to keep Chretien/Martin in power (when they were producing balanced budgets) if it would have made a difference but Monte Solberg was winning our riding by a country mile.



All you seem to be repeating is that you think people are stupid. I'm sure we all get that.





perk definition


  1. n.
    an extra financial benefit; a monetary inducement or reward. (From perquisite. See also benies (external - login to view).) : I don't get paid much, but the perks are good.
What perk would you be referring to?

I'd take a close look at those "balanced budgets"!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone can balance a budget when they transfer some of the bills for someone else to pay.
 
Cannuck
#299
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I'd take a close look at those "balanced budgets"!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone can balance a budget when they transfer some of the bills for someone else to pay.

Yes. Seniors can also claim they paid their fair share when they transfer some of the bills for someone else to pay. There seems to have been a lot of that going around with your generation.

What perks are you referring to?
 
Goober
#300
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Yes. Seniors can also claim they paid their fair share when they transfer some of the bills for someone else to pay. There seems to have been a lot of that going around with your generation.

What perks are you referring to?

And of course no one in your family ever benefited from the Govt spending more than they had. Would that be correct? Of course it would not be correct - More than enough blame to go around.
 

Similar Threads

1
Commentary on the younger generation?
by Goober | Jun 25th, 2011
no new posts