Time to Kill OAS??

[tibear]

OAP shouldn't be compared with other programs, because it's different, it's a pittance for old people, it's helps cover those in need and perhaps it can be looked at as a pay back to the weathier ones who have been highly taxed for 30, 40 or 50 years.

So you like Monopoly analogy........make it around the board collect $200.....live to $65 collect $6,000 a year.

Now it isn't about helping the poor senior but rather a payback for being taxed over a period of time. I think we had this point already and I suggested that EVERY canadian receive $X amount of dollars for every year they are over 18. Doesn't that sound fair?

Where does fairness to the poor canadian that pays taxes for 50 years and dies before they have a chance to collect OAS? Where is your fairness for them?

BTW, if it really is a pittance of money than why do we give it at all and why do you have such a hard time agreeing that we shouldn't pay it?

 

[JLM]

So you like Monopoly analogy........make it around the board collect $200.....live to $65 collect $6,000 a year.

Now it isn't about helping the poor senior but rather a payback for being taxed over a period of time. I think we had this point already and I suggested that EVERY canadian receive $X amount of dollars for every year they are over 18. Doesn't that sound fair?

Where does fairness to the poor canadian that pays taxes for 50 years and dies before they have a chance to collect OAS? Where is your fairness for them?

"Fair" doesn't enter into it. Life is seldom fair. What would be the source of money for this proposal?

 

[tibear]

"Fair" doesn't enter into it. Life is seldom fair. What would be the source of money for this proposal?

Why shouldn't fair enter into every discussion when it comes to government handouts? People who should receive government money should qualify to receive it through a means criteria. Every other assistance program has such a criteria why should this be different?

Your right life isn't fair but our government policies should be.

Where does the money from OAS come from and why would the $X for every canadian be different? Should the desolate 62 year old get some money to help them and if so why should they be treated differently than the 65 year old?

 

[TenPenny]

Before we had OAS, as people got to retirement age, they often had no savings and nothing to live on.
Back in the 1920s, our country brought in a system that would ensure that as people retired, they had a guaranteed source of income, so they would not live out their old age destitute.

In 1952, the OAS system was brought into place, making it a fully federal system.

The concept is that Canadian citizens spend their younger productive years helping make this country successful, and keeing the economy moving. In return, we can know that there is a form of old age pension that we can count on in our old age, when the majority of people aren't physically capable of working.

It is part of our 'societal contract', we as a country agree to look after senior citizens in return for people being part of society in their younger years.

So you like Monopoly analogy........make it around the board collect $200.....live to $65 collect $6,000 a year.

Now it isn't about helping the poor senior but rather a payback for being taxed over a period of time. I think we had this point already and I suggested that EVERY canadian receive $X amount of dollars for every year they are over 18. Doesn't that sound fair?

Where does fairness to the poor canadian that pays taxes for 50 years and dies before they have a chance to collect OAS? Where is your fairness for them?

BTW, if it really is a pittance of money than why do we give it at all and why do you have such a hard time agreeing that we shouldn't pay it?

I gather that you believe that anyone age 65 or older has the same opportunity to work and make money as an 18 year old.

 

[petros]

Exactly, treat them like the rest of Canadians. Help those that truly need the help and stop giving our free money that don't need it.

Free money? I think you have OAS and CPP confused. OAS for those who didn't work enough to get CPP

 

[taxslave]

The other program that should be killed is the GIS program.
It's just another program that could be replaced by the Welfare Program, ie if you need it, you get it..

The GIS program is the program most senior immigrants get when they cone here in their older yrs, either thru family reunification program or as a refugee..

Now that is probably true. It could be rolled into another of several existing programs and eliminate the bureaucraps that profit from it.

 

[tibear]

Before we had OAS, as people got to retirement age, they often had no savings and nothing to live on.
Back in the 1920s, our country brought in a system that would ensure that as people retired, they had a guaranteed source of income, so they would not live out their old age destitute.

In 1952, the OAS system was brought into place, making it a fully federal system.

The concept is that Canadian citizens spend their younger productive years helping make this country successful, and keeing the economy moving. In return, we can know that there is a form of old age pension that we can count on in our old age, when the majority of people aren't physically capable of working.

It is part of our 'societal contract', we as a country agree to look after senior citizens in return for people being part of society in their younger years.



I gather that you believe that anyone age 65 or older has the same opportunity to work and make money as an 18 year old.

I have no problem the history of the program but times change and we need to think about how we spend our money. Many of our young people are worried about CPP which is a program that they actually PAID for with premiums to help them in their senior years nevermind a program that gives away money that people never actually paid into.

As you say the senior may not have the same opportunity as an 18 year old to work but many of our seniors and all of our seniors of tomorrow have the opportunity to pay into CPP to save for retirement. They can choose to work and get CPP and for those that can't work or don't have enough money in retirement we have social assistance.

Many would say that seniors had 50 years to collect money for retirement and chose not to so let them live in the livestyle they made. However, I see the other side and there are many who weren't able to work or had family situations or health situations that made working difficult. I'm a full supporter of social assistance to help those that need a hand regardless of their age or situation. If you NEED money, then the government should help you......period...end of discussion.

You, JLM and others still haven't shown any acceptable reason why OAS needs to be around in today's society.

Free money? I think you have OAS and CPP confused. OAS for those who didn't work enough to get CPP

The free money referred to OAS. CPP is a pension plan that canadians have paid into and have a right to collect.

 

[Tonington]

How do non-OAS assitance programs gauge the level of assistance that is required?

Well it depends entirely on what kind of program it is doesn't it? Application process. Different processes for different programs with different structures, and different benefits.

I've never said that we "throw our seniors in the cold" but rather why should they be treated any differently than the single parent with three children or the young man with mental illness that needs government assistance?

Because their situations are different? Why shouldn't they be treated differently? Further, why do you think a catch all program is more effective at delivering program goals than one tailored to specific needs?

Would it make sense to have a student loan application go through the same process as OAS, or disability benefits, or Employment Insurance?

If you think the answer is yes, why???

Government assistance programs to determine needs are in place now are they not? Why couldn't the money from OAS simply go into the general social assistance programs and put everyone on a level playing field and who knows with the efficiencies we may actually be able to give MORE money to those seniors that actually need it.

What efficiencies? You're talking about downloading from Federal to Provincial areas of responsibility. When has that ever resulted in more money being available?

My opening point is that rather than helping those seniors that need help we blindly give money to all seniors whether they need it or not. In my opinion that is rather inefficient method to help our poor seniors.

OAS benefits are set by legislation. If someone receives $75,000 a year from their savings/pensions in their retirement, and receives OAS, it doesn't have any bearing at all on the retiree who only receives $20,000 a year plus their OAS.

OAS is funded from general government revenues, and the costs are not fixed.

Further, we have a number of agreements with foreign countries when it comes to administering OAS. Further, the poorest retired Canadians have access to Guaranteed Income Supplements, so long as they are receiving OAS.

The central assumption on your part is that we can more efficiently, and thus in a more equitable manner provide assistance to seniors in Canada by basically re-tooling the system we have. That is a large and I would say dubious assumption. Considering that the general welfare is provincial, it's very likely that in the case you suggest, it would not be equitable at all. In fact depending on which province you retire in, could make a huge difference.

 

[TenPenny]

You, JLM and others still haven't shown any acceptable reason why OAS needs to be around in today's society.

Likewise, you have not shown any acceptable reason why OAS should be changed.

Many of our young people are worried about CPP which is a program that they actually PAID for with premiums to help them in their senior years nevermind a program that gives away money that people never actually paid into.

What does worrying about the future of a contribution based plan like CPP have to do with OAS?

They are completely unrelated.

 

[Kreskin]

When OAS was introduced life expectancy in Canada was less than or close to the target age to collect (men living to 66, women to 71.. OAS collected at 70). Collection was later modified to age 65.

The purpose was to assist the elderly in their last and most frail few years. The most recent LE stats show men living to about 79 and women to 83. The OAS program has become much more costly than it was ever intended.

 

[JLM]

When OAS was introduced life expectancy in Canada was less than or close to the target age to collect (men living to 66, women to 71.. OAS collected at 70). Collection was later modified to age 65.

The purpose was to assist the elderly in their last and most frail few years. The most recent LE stats show men living to about 79 and women to 83. The OAS program has become much more costly than it was ever intended.

Good point Kreskin, I don't think there is any doubt that the age of eligibility needs changing, but that is not the point tibear is belabouring! :smile:

 

[tibear]

Good point Kreskin, I don't think there is any doubt that the age of eligibility needs changing, but that is not the point tibear is belabouring! :smile:

You're right the point I'm making is that the vast majority of seniors collecting OAS don't need the money. What percentage of the seniors earn less than the poverty line?

So you weren't one of the moaners that cried foul when the government wanted to raise the age of OAS to 67? Was it because it didn't affect you personally? With the average lifespan now over 80 years of age would you be OK with having the age raised to 76 to correlate to same number of years til death as the original OAS program?

Noticed how you seem to ignore the question I put to you about using the OAS philosphy for other social programs(i.e. giving every canadian $10K a year and taking it off their taxes if they earn too much).......when someone doesn't respond it speaks volumes to their position.

Likewise, you have not shown any acceptable reason why OAS should be changed.



What does worrying about the future of a contribution based plan like CPP have to do with OAS?

They are completely unrelated.

You and other claim that OAS and CPP are tied together as a pension security for our seniors and I'm pointing out that our young people don't have that luxury. They may not have anything with they retire because we're giving away all of their money today to their parents and grandparents.

 

[Tonington]

When OAS was introduced life expectancy in Canada was less than or close to the target age to collect (men living to 66, women to 71.. OAS collected at 70). Collection was later modified to age 65.

The purpose was to assist the elderly in their last and most frail few years. The most recent LE stats show men living to about 79 and women to 83. The OAS program has become much more costly than it was ever intended.

All true, but the mean hides the differences between those at different ends of the earning spectrum. When the life expectancy is stratified by income, only about 50% of the lowest earners are expected reach the age of 75, while for the highest income decile, about 75% are expected to reach the age of 75. That also translates to about a 7 year difference in life expectancy between the lowest and highest earners.

Findings

You're right the point I'm making is that the vast majority of seniors collecting OAS don't need the money. What percentage of the seniors earn less than the poverty line?

Vast majority? Do you have any figures perhaps to back that up?

 

[TenPenny]

.......when someone doesn't respond it speaks volumes to their position.

Or it means that they believe the question posed is either stupidly slanted, or simply a distortion or diversion, and not worth responding to.

Why don't you have stiletto heels on at this moment?

 

[JLM]

So you weren't one of the moaners that cried foul when the government wanted to raise the age of OAS to 67? Was it because it didn't affect you personally? With the average lifespan now over 80 years of age would you be OK with having the age raised to 76 to correlate to same number of years til death as the original OAS program?

.

Now you are speaking out of ignorance (and starting to piss me off). Read my posts in the thread about raising the age of eligibility!

 

[Mowich]

Let's call a spade a spade, it is a vote grab for seniors that every party is afraid to touch and it is paid off the backs of the hardworking canadians that could use the money to pay for THEIR families.

You seem to forget that the seniors you so quickly dismiss were also hard working Canadians paying 'off their backs' too.

 

[JLM]

This discussion is getting stupid, everyone except two people have a firm understanding.

You seem to forget that the seniors you so quickly dismiss were also hard working Canadians paying 'off their backs' too.

Hi Mowich.........................no use trying to reason with idiots! :lol:

 

[TenPenny]

You seem to forget that the seniors you so quickly dismiss were also hard working Canadians paying 'off their backs' too.

I think his point (disguised as it is) is that, since OAS applies to everyone, not all of the recipients were 'hard working' Canadians.

 

[tibear]

You seem to forget that the seniors you so quickly dismiss were also hard working Canadians paying 'off their backs' too.

I've never dismissed them, I just don't see why they should be treated differently than other canadians. Can you please show me one valid reason why seniors should receive "free" money from the government when others don't.

This discussion is getting stupid, everyone except two people have a firm understanding.

[/FONT]

Hi Mowich.........................no use trying to reason with idiots! :lol:

Again name calling only reflects badly on your position and you as a person. It doesn't help your arguements.

There are a lot of you who give the same reasons:
- the money is for poor seniors ( my question is why are they treated differently than other poor canadians?)
- the money is to "pay back" seniors for their years of taxes they paid. (Why should paying taxes qualify you for "free" money? If you've paid too much in taxes, instead of giving you money when you reach 65 how about lowering taxes as you earn it so you can save for your retirement?)
- Because we like the program. (How is that an arguement?)
- Because it's different than other social assistance programs. (How is that an arguement?)

When challenged on your believes you resort to namecalling and verbal abuse. This is fine but it doesn't further the discussion. I've put forth challenges to clarify your positions by proposing that other social programs be administered similarly to OAS and you either ignore or take personal attacks.

How about some calm rational debate about the program.

All true, but the mean hides the differences between those at different ends of the earning spectrum. When the life expectancy is stratified by income, only about 50% of the lowest earners are expected reach the age of 75, while for the highest income decile, about 75% are expected to reach the age of 75. That also translates to about a 7 year difference in life expectancy between the lowest and highest earners.

Vast majority? Do you have any figures perhaps to back that up?

Thanks for the non-abusive debate, it is appreciated.

As for the figures, here is a blog from 2008 which indicates that about 6.5-7% of seniors live below the poverty line. The Progressive Economics Forum » Falling Poverty Among the Elderly – A Canadian Success Story

Will the numbers have changed from 2008, perhaps. But surely they haven't changed to the point of tripleling or more in the last 3-4 years. This means that upwards of 90% of the seniors are collecting $6K a year when they really don't need it.

 

[TenPenny]

There are a lot of you who give the same reasons:
- the money is for poor seniors ( my question is why are they treated differently than other poor canadians?)

I answered that one.