Time to Kill OAS??
- Thread starter tibear
- Start date
How many instances are there of that happening in comparison to those instances that don't happen like that?
Sometimes, yes.
Was the change in family allowance project financially viable? It happened without any gradual implementation. As of a certain date, families lost their cheques, period.
And look at the uproar it caused. Like I said, if gov't was conscientious about things, it'd be better but it doesn't act conscientiously much.
Yes, that 110k person will receive a net $474 of OAS in one year (assuming they have lived in Canada for 40 years).
According to an article as a result of the proposed change in the Ontario Drug plan for seniors 5% of seniors make at least $100K per year. Ontario Seniors get Budget attention | CARP Canada
However, I think we can all agree that $100K annually is way too much for anyone to receive a subsidy from the government. Using the Child Tax Benefit as a guideline I would suggest that using something like $55K as a maximum to receive any type of OAS.
Since about 5% of seniors make $100K per year, would it be unreasonable to assume that at least 25% have incomes of $55K annually?
Assuming about 2.5 million seniors in Canada and 25% having incomes of $55K per year would mean that the government could redirect $4.125B every year into other programs. ((2,500,000 * .25 * $6.6K) = $4.125B)
75% of seniors would still receive OAS payments and potentially have access to even more funds because the government now have $4.125B to redirect to those less fortunate. (YES, the government will likely find other areas to spend/waste this found money but that shouldn't have ANY bearing on whether this program needs to be revamped.)
Makes the program even with Family Tax Benefit and doesn't even take into consideration the additional costs of the extra people to support.
I agree with you....so why does a single senior that makes that same amount still get OAS?
The amount of the OAS is the discussion point, the fact is they still get a cheque from the government when they don't need it.
I'm ok with reducing the ceiling on a program like OAS but I am against such savings going to other programs.
But your math is not correct. If in fact 25% make more than 55k many don't make the max OAS amount. As I pointed out in a previous post a senior making $110k makes $474 per year from OAS, not $6,600.
But your math is not correct. If in fact 25% make more than 55k many don't make the max OAS amount. As I pointed out in a previous post a senior making $110k makes $474 per year from OAS, not $6,600.
So you would reduce taxes to give back the $4.125B savings to all canadians? I'm OK with that as well but we know that once the government has our money that it is very unlikely that it will every give it back. I think it would be better if the government take at least some of the money to enhance the GIS program for seniors so that we ensure that some of the monies stay with seniors and not the politicians latest projects.
You're right. Of course, I would also assume that there would still be a clawback but with different minimum and maximum. How about a minimum of $40K and maximum of $55K. This would more closely reflect the Child Tax Benefit program.
How about we say that 10% of seniors make between $55- 67K per year whereby all of those would lose the $6.6K OAS cheques. That would give us (2,500,000 seniors * 10% * 6,600) $1.65B PLUS all of reduced OAS from those seniors that had OAS clawbacks in the previous program PLUS all of the new reduced OAS received by the seniors that are now in the newly defined min-max windows. We're probably looking at around at least $2.25B - $2.5B.
AND let us not forget that by the year 2030 they expect to have about 4.8 million seniors in Canada so you can double these figures by that date.
Last edited:
Ah, so let's change the entire system (and spend a shipload of money doing it) in order to correct the 5% that get overpaid? Genius.
More genius. Dude A has an income of $45K. He has no chronic health issues, lives quite simply, owns his own home, only travels to AZ where he spends 3 months of the year, etc. Dude B has an income of $60k a year, spends (like my mother used to) a net ("net" referring to meds that are not covered by insurance) total of about $8k on meds, about $x on user fees for therapies, about $y on home assistance, etc.
I don't know. Is that a reasonable figure?
Well, I don't like assuming figures for one thing. Too many "ifs" is the reason.
I thought the discussion point was getting rid of OAS. But either way, I bet that the incidents of overpayment of OAS isn't as huge as you make it out to be,
Firstly, I think we all agreed that $111K maximum for OAS is outrageous and 5% is the number of seniors that make more than $100K. There is discussion about what is a reasonable window for OAS/GIS but I simply used the Child Tax Benefit incomes as a starting point.
What assumptions that I make would say are outrageous? Your examples of the two seniors is realistic and the one that has health issues does have provincial health benefits to cover him.
Hate to keep going back to the Family Allowance/Child Tax Benefit but yes, people screamed and complained but in the long run, the families that needed the money have the money and the rest of them survived just fine without the extra money.
Why do I get the feeling that you would complain whether they did an analysis or not?
You sound like a broken record. There are much bigger and easier fixed wastes of tax dollars than OAS. Defined benefit pensions for government workers being one of the main ones and most easily fixed.
Like I said, I don't know. That's another reason why I dislike assumptions and refuse to assume assumptions are even close unless they are supported.
Yes they are realistic because I based the examples upon people I know or knew. The only relief for the person with the health issues was at income tax return time.
Did they? Or did they have to make some pretty big adjustments to compensate?
Because I have a massive dislike and distrust for gov'ts.Why do I get the feeling that you would complain whether they did an analysis or not?
That's right, never fix anything that's broken because it's too much work and costs money to change, regardless of the huge benefits come as a result.
You really want to go after people's pensions? The pensions that these people have paid into for decades? Wow, wonder how the rest of the seniors here would feel about that? Although they probably don't care, because they're already collecting and it doesn't affect them......
Like I said, I don't know. That's another reason why I dislike assumptions and refuse to assume assumptions are even close unless they are supported. Yes they are realistic because I based the examples upon people I know or knew. The only relief for the person with the health issues was at income tax return time.
Did they? Or did they have to make some pretty big adjustments to compensate?
Because I have a massive dislike and distrust for gov'ts.
I know that in my province we have deductibles that need to be paid but once that's taken care of then the person doesn't have to put anymore money out.
We were one of the families affected by family allowances and the dollar amount was so small (something like $18 a child per month) that it wasn't that big a deal.
Many here claim that the OAS they collect is so small that it shouldn't really have much affect for most seniors.
Because I have a massive dislike and distrust for gov'ts.
You are not alone on that score or the Unions who back them! :smile:
So you are mainly interested in the saving the Gov't. money. I can give you a good example of where you can save more money and piss fewer people off................................Remove bargaining rights along with the respective Unions of Gov't employees and bring politicians pensions in line with public workers' pensions. :lol:
Timing matters. Priorities matter. It's a juggling act.
Depends upon whether the gov't pensions are in line with the ROC pensions or not. They aren't.
That's why I used the word "net".
It's relative. People existing upon $8000 net per year would feel $18 difference way more than people existing upon $18k per year.
Yeah, it's relative.