I answered that question at least twice, but you refuse to even acknowledge it. And you have the nerve to insult other people for refusing to acknowledge your special uniqueness and innate superiority.
GFY.
Time to Kill OAS??
- Thread starter tibear
- Start date
I answered that question at least twice, but you refuse to even acknowledge it. And you have the nerve to insult other people for refusing to acknowledge your special uniqueness and innate superiority.
GFY.
I have not "lost" sweet fu ck all.
Oh, btw I assume you check all of the previous topics before starting a new discussion point right? I thought so...Most people with half a brain do a quick search to ensure that their topic isn't just duplicating another discussion.
I have already told you that, the reason for you repeating it would be......................?
and I have already told you, because they have earned it.
Your position has absolutely nothing to do with "fairness" and everything to do with whining. Pick something else to cut and leave the seniors alone.
What is "fairness" and where do you find it? Does fairness mean equality? Fairness is not something that is handed out. If it is such a concern to you, YOU work your ass off to even things up.
There is no discussing with an individual like yourself. Once you begin to lose an arguement you go into personal attack mode and completely forget about discussing the points.
Oh, btw I assume you check all of the previous topics before starting a new discussion point right? I thought so...Most people with half a brain do a quick search to ensure that their topic isn't just duplicating another discussion.
Cabbage, it is not I that said that OAS is a social program it is the proponents of the program that have made the claim. I simply asked why seniors were entitled to "free" money when no other segment of the population is.
My position is strictly about fairness but the prononents of OAS and my attackers don't want to hear about fairness.
Can you not see that you are saying it is a Social programme. If it is free money awarded to the Seniors you are not saying it is a one time gift because there is a budget surplus. You are saying that it is given for the purpose of improving the financial condition to a sector of the population that has not earned or contributed.
Free money is when the government sends a cheque to canadians without any type of means requirement.
I acknowledged it but just rejected it because it wasn't a valid reason.
Sometimes is cheaper (and a lot less red tape) to categorize than to scruitinize every single case. The system is set up to take care of the means requirement- those who don't have it get it taxed back! Not a difficult concept! :smile:
Think about the the half a brain comment, I'm sure you'll get it eventually!
Perhaps if I try a different example the aspect of fairness might be more clear. Remember when every family use to receive family allowance for every child under 18 years of age. You had a child you received a cheque each month for a set dollar figure regardless of need. Back in the 90's, the government determined that it didn't make sense to give everyone cheques when some of the families didn't need the money and others needed more than what the family allowance was providing. So it changed the program and now there is a family income threshold and other requirements to determine how much money each family receives each month. The "wealthy" which is by no means wealthy. For example I did some checking and for a family of 4 that make $80K per family, they would get exactly what the old family allowance program gave them, at about $110K per family they receive nothing and those that are low income receive more than the family allowance program was giving them.
Why couldn't the same take place for seniors and OAS?
Cabbage, I'm saying that OAS SHOULD be a social program but it isn't right now because there is no means criteria associated with it. Others, claim that OAS is already a social program, I do not share their opinion.
I'm of the opinion that the government should never be giving a cheque to individual canadians without some sort of means criteria. Set the tax rate at a fair level and then let everyone handle their own finances, if there are individuals that need help financially then the government should have programs to help them but there must be some financial criteria that must be met before a government cheque is issued.
Any comment on my comparison to the old family allowance program and why you believe that OAS should be treated differently?
JLM, noticed that you never did comment on the millions of seniors that take winter vacations and play golf all summer with the OAS cheques. Do they still "need" the money?
Last edited:
One has to start repaying OAS at an income level of about 67k and by about 112k it is all repaid.
Someone once said you judge the quality of country by how it treats it's elderly. We all become old and 'less able' to support ourselves. Getting old and sick costs money. Often a lot of money.
Someone once said you judge the quality of country by how it treats it's elderly. We all become old and 'less able' to support ourselves. Getting old and sick costs money. Often a lot of money.
I thought the quote also inclulded the young.
Regardless, I agreement you that getting old does have financial costs associated with it and as a society we need to ensure that our seniors are able to live comfortably. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that billions of dollars are given to seniors every year through OAS that they do not need to live comfortably.
BTW are you comparing OAS and the new Child Tax Benefit program? Please remember that OAS has an individual maximum of $111K before they lose their cheques and the Child Tax Benefit is $110K for a family of 4 when they lose all of the child tax benefit cheque. Two completely different situations, I would assume I wouldn't have to go through all of the additional expenses of food, education, clothing, etc associated with 4 people compared to 1.
Perhaps they don't need it if they dispose of their assets. However selling assets isn't often easy, and if everyone had to then you're screwing up the other side of the equation. If granny has a $500,000 home should she HAVE to sell it to stay alive? How about all those first time homebuyers who see real estate absolutely tank them into permanent negative net worth because everyone like granny has to sell? And just what would be the value of those assets if the government forced all seniors to dump their houses?
Playing Devil's advocate, if Granny has a $500,000 home with clear title, she probably qualifies for a reverse mortgage if she's over age 60 something and could probably raise as much as $250,000. She gets to continue in her home and enjoy a fairly substantial monthly income.
The max you get on a reverse mortgage is about 40% of the appraised value (if you're really old). At 65 it's not much more than 20%. The set up costs aren't cheap and if this was forced on people then the interest rates, which are already out of this world, would go higher. And now you're forcing someone to lose capital.
I've tried to explain it (apparently in vain)- Seniors who are living that high on the hog and getting most of that money taxed back. Sometimes there are cans of worms that it just isn't prudent, wise or profitable to open up. Seniors are an emotional issue- some of them have contributed for 50 years a considerable sum of money to the Government trough- so maybe it's only proper that they can get a chance to wallow in the trough with the politicians. Lets take a number of 1000 seniors receiving OAP, Perhaps 300 of them don't "deserve" it by your standards. So you are going to scruitinize the 1000 to arrive at 300 to chop. Now you are open to a class action suit. In all likelihood it will be deemed proper for them to continue receiving the money until the case is settled in court (possibly 3 years) and probably $millions of dollars. So who is the winner here? It's certainly not the taxpayer! :smile:
Good point, but as I already said I was only playing "Devils Advocate". I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. :lol::lol:
With respect to the question of "Social" or not, tibear, I don't think you know what you are saying. You certainly confuse yourself.
However, you whole attitude is one I find rather creepy. You tout the ususal line of the libertarian and larder it with the same untruths. "Millions take winter vacations on OAS and millions play golf." The fact is, as I posted earlier, that there are more than one million seniors living in poverty: poverty even under the official designation that is not reflective of the actual degree of poverty. There is
More than a million more who are counted as close to that ungenerous threshold.
Millions of Seniors do not visit dentists or opticians and live in cramped conditions. A much more accurate assessment than yours.
However, you whole attitude is one I find rather creepy. You tout the ususal line of the libertarian and larder it with the same untruths. "Millions take winter vacations on OAS and millions play golf." The fact is, as I posted earlier, that there are more than one million seniors living in poverty: poverty even under the official designation that is not reflective of the actual degree of poverty. There is
More than a million more who are counted as close to that ungenerous threshold.
Millions of Seniors do not visit dentists or opticians and live in cramped conditions. A much more accurate assessment than yours.
Yep, when you are going to embark on what tibear recommends you have to look at ALL the issues and not just jump in from some half baked emotional standpoint! :smile:
You have the choice of having kids or not. Like buying a new car every year. So far as I am aware no one has the option of not getting old.