Governments spend too much on Seniors

[JLM]

Karrie, you're right a lot of our youth do put a lot of pressure on themselves.
However, I'm a baby boomer and when I was young my first mortgage was about 2 times my annual salary. Today's youth must pay 3 , 4 or 5 times their annual salary for their mortgages and who usually gets the proceeds of the sale of these homes? Our seniors!

.

Yep, but compare the houses today with what we mortgaged 50 years ago. Many houses then had building paper for insulation, had 110 wiring, with one electrical outlet and a light bulb in every room, single pane glass, very few cabinets like we see today. A lot of them had no carport.

 

[gerryh]

That's right, a brand new 1953 Olds cost $3600.

and the average income was $4600/year

house $17,500


average income now......53,000

car.....25,000

 

[JLM]

$23 a day to raise a kid?????????? Someone has been doing a bit of bull sh*tting! -

and the average income was $4600/year

house $17,500


average income now......53,000

car.....25,000

Yep.

So, the posts you give thumbs down because they're insults, etc.... this is what they look like, yeah?

I wouldn't pay any attention to it Karrie, considering where it's coming from. I don't have to be all that bright to be about 120 I.Q. points ahead of our resident idiot.-

You forgot that we all make $75k or more....hell, even McD's pays $15/hr ;-)


In the 40's & 50's I could buy a house and a car for less than we just spent on new appliances.

That's right, a brand new 1953 Olds cost $3600.

 

[karrie]

I think the fact that you live in Alberta, the land of NO PST and low taxes gives you rose coloured glasses.

Most people these days start out making minimum wage, which around here is about $10.50/hr. Try saving up for a $20,000 down payment on a house (10%) with that salary. Nearly impossible.

This is my point... why do they need a downpayment on a house when they're making minimum wage? Who the hell convinced them that's the wise path? WHy do young people all have mortgages? Boomers didn't straight out of the gate. What's happening there?

 

[Cannuck]

and the average income was $4600/year

house $17,500


average income now......53,000

car.....25,000

You can't really compare income to the cost of a house or car without looking at after tax income.

 

[PoliticalNick]

$23 a day to raise a kid?????????? Someone has been doing a bit of bull sh*tting! -

Turns out to be almost double that....

According to MoneySense.ca, the average cost of raising a child to age 18 is a whopping $243,660. Break down that number, and that’s $12,825 per child, per year -- or $1,070 per month. And that's before you send them off to university.

How much does it cost to raise kids in Canada? - Canadian Living

 

[gerryh]

Turns out to be almost double that....


How much does it cost to raise kids in Canada? - Canadian Living

It also turns out to be bullshyte because even at 5 kids at home...... that works out to more money than I made...gross.... before taxes.

 

[PoliticalNick]

It also turns out to be bullshyte because even at 5 kids at home...... that works out to more money than I made...gross.... before taxes.

I think what you're missing here is that number is what it costs to raise a child born today, not what it cost you to raise a child who is an adult today. I am sure with the amount of offspring you had there was a lot of sharing bedrooms and hand-me-down clothing and toys. I would also suspect your kids didn't get $100 runners but got $20 wal-mart specials.

 

[tibear]

I still have the dealer receipt the original owner of my 1968 Camaro SS convertible gave me when I bought it from him. On May 9th 1968 he paid $4150, in September of 1992 I paid $8500, last year I had an offer from a collector of $42,000.

Do you think that salaries have gone up 10 fold in the last 35 years, I know that minimum wage certainly hasn't.

Yep, but compare the houses today with what we mortgaged 50 years ago. Many houses then had building paper for insulation, had 110 wiring, with one electrical outlet and a light bulb in every room, single pane glass, very few cabinets like we see today. A lot of them had no carport.

Valid point, but my house that has gone up 300% over the last 15 years hasn't had any major improvement. The point, which I'm sure you're aware is that today's youth have it much tougher financially than you and I had it when we were their age. Their salaries are comparitively lower and virtually everything costs more today than it did in our day even after you include inflation.

Yet you still want them to pay for your play money.

This is my point... why do they need a downpayment on a house when they're making minimum wage? Who the hell convinced them that's the wise path? WHy do young people all have mortgages? Boomers didn't straight out of the gate. What's happening there?

Who said about getting a mortgage right away. These young people CAN'T get a mortgage because they can't save the 10% for the down payment. You're the one who wrote that most young people you know never rent but buy a home right away. By the time most boomers were 25 they were in their own home, many of today's youth are still living at home at that age because they can't afford to move out and as someone else has stated, many try to live on their own but find that they can't because their salaries can't afford a home and the other things required to survive. So many end up moving back in with mom and dad.

 

[JLM]

Turns out to be almost double that....


How much does it cost to raise kids in Canada? - Canadian Living

Just because someone spent that doesn't mean that's what it costs. We are raising two grand daughters on less than $700 a month, so anyone who tries to peddle that horse sh*t is lying.

I think what you're missing here is that number is what it costs to raise a child born today, not what it cost you to raise a child who is an adult today. I am sure with the amount of offspring you had there was a lot of sharing bedrooms and hand-me-down clothing and toys. I would also suspect your kids didn't get $100 runners but got $20 wal-mart specials.

Well, what is wrong with that?

Do you think that salaries have gone up 10 fold in the last 35 years, I know that minimum wage certainly hasn't.



.

Not quite but it certainly has in the past 50, I don't recall what minimum wage was 35 years ago, but average wage was well under $10,000 a year so minimum wage could have been $2 an hour. (If in fact there was "minimum wage at that time)

 

[tibear]

ON THE PLUS SIDE a guy could bust his A$$ and get a raise in pay so he could make the $20 grand down payment.

Not as easy as you think it is. Take the following example:
- We'll give them a 50% increase in pay and earning $15 an hour ($30K annually gross)
- optimistically lose $5,000 to taxes (leaving $25,000)
- $900 for rent (if you're lucky) ($10,800 annually)
- $75 a week for food ($3,900 annually)
- no car so they need bus pass to get to work ($1,000 annually)
- medical and dental (because they have no health coverage at that salary) ($1,000 annually)
- $5,000 for misc like gifts, incidentals, social life, phone, internet, television
- If they needed a vehicle to get to work then add $500 month for car payment, insurance, gas and maintenance

Bus worker has $3,300 extra at the end of the year and vehicle worker would be in the hole by $1,700.
IF there is no inflation it would take the bus worker 7 years to get the $20K down payment and the person who needs a vehicle would never be able to get the down payment.

In those 7 years the house they were looking at buying has risen by at least 40% (conservatively considering the way housing prices have risen over the last 15 years) so now the $200K is selling for $280K and the down payment required is $28K. They may have received increase in their wage but in today's economy you're lucky to get 1 or 2% meaning a pay increase of 15 or 30 cents an hour ($300-600 annually).

So the house is going up by at least 5 or 6% annually and their salary is increasing by 1 or 2%......the math isn't hard, they're falling further and further behind every year AND we haven't taken into consideration any inflation which completely negates their salary increase.

Life is so easy when you're a senior and own your home and have a lot of money in the bank but try looking at the situation many of the young people find themselves and it will truly shock you. There are many hard working young people that simply can't get ahead and yet it seems that many of our seniors don't care......quite sad actually.

Again, please try to explain to me how you support a program that gives $6,000 each year to people that make $71,000 annually?

 

[JLM]

It also turns out to be bullshyte because even at 5 kids at home...... that works out to more money than I made...gross.... before taxes.

You got that right, Gerry. I've found one "red herring" in their bullsh*t. They add the cost of day care for children but fail to subtract the money that day care is allowing the 2nd parent to earn. Very dishonest!

Again, please try to explain to me how you support a program that gives $6,000 each year to people that make $71,000 annually?

Now are you saying make $71,000 annually or made $71,000 annually?

 

[tibear]

Not quite but it certainly has in the past 50, I don't recall what minimum wage was 35 years ago, but average wage was well under $10,000 a year so minimum wage could have been $2 an hour.

In Manitoba, where I live, I couldn't find numbers for 1960's but for 1980 I found that minimum wage was $3.15/hour, it is currently 10.45 so it has gone up about 3.17 times over 32 years.

As I said previously, home prices here have risen about between 200-300% over the past 15 years. So over the past 15 years ,conservatively speaking, homes have increase at the rate of 13.3% annually. Minimum wage in 1997 was $5.40 so it has doubled over the past 15 years or gone up by 6.2% annually. It appears that housing costs are rising at double the rate of minimum wage which again makes it very difficult for young people to ever get in their own homes.

BTW, $10,000 works out to $4.80/hour. Real simple math $10,000/52 weeks/40 hours = $4.80/hour

$2/hr would work out to: $2/hr*40 hours*52 weeks = $4,160 a year

Now are you saying make $71,000 annually or made $71,000 annually?

That have an income of $71,000 annually.

 

[Cannuck]

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/16-6

According to researchers at the Brookings Institute's Hamilton Project, the median working-age man with a job earns about 4 percent less, when adjusted for inflation, than he did in 1970.....Regardless, it seems that real wages have been on a mostly downward slope for more than 40 years which—according to New York economist Martin Kohli—makes economic recovery more difficult "because without wage growth, it’s harder for Americans to pay down their debts.".

 

[JLM]

In Manitoba, where I live, I couldn't find numbers for 1960's but for 1980 I found that minimum wage was $3.15/hour, it is currently 10.45 so it has gone up about 3.17 times over 32 years.

As I said previously, home prices here have risen about between 200-300% over the past 15 years. So over the past 15 years ,conservatively speaking, homes have increase at the rate of 13.3% annually. Minimum wage in 1997 was $5.40 so it has doubled over the past 15 years or gone up by 6.2% annually. It appears that housing costs are rising at double the rate of minimum wage which again makes it very difficult for young people to ever get in their own homes.

BTW, $10,000 works out to $4.80/hour. Real simple math $10,000/52 weeks/40 hours = $4.80/hour

$2/hr would work out to: $2/hr*40 hours*52 weeks = $4,160 a year



That have an income of $71,000 annually.

I don't have any problem with your figures, but that is not the whole story. We are not buying the same stuff with todays income we bought 30-50 years ago. Some seniors probably have an income that well exceeds $71,000, but I don't think that is sufficient reason to cut off OAS, but I do think that perhaps "snowbirds", should pay an additional tax (if it can be done without too much red tape) as our country is not benefitting as much from their spending for up to 6 months of the year.

Forget my suggestion of taxing snowbirds, while they are not contributing during that time, they are not doing any damage either. That wasn't too well thought out on my part.

Why do we have two threads originated by the same poster on the same subject?

 

[tibear]

I don't have any problem with your figures, but that is not the whole story. We are not buying the same stuff with todays income we bought 30-50 years ago. Some seniors probably have an income that well exceeds $71,000, but I don't think that is sufficient reason to cut off OAS, but I do think that perhaps "snowbirds", should pay an additional tax (if it can be done without too much red tape) as our country is not benefitting as much from their spending for up to 6 months of the year.

Forget my suggestion of taxing snowbirds, while they are not contributing during that time, they are not doing any damage either. That wasn't too well thought out on my part.

It's beyond me where anyone can justify giving $6,000 to someone that already has and income of $71,000. That's more than the poverty line for a family of 4!!!

Hey Da, how about you trying to come up with a valid reason to tax the poor to give to the rich? I'm still waiting to hear 1 good reason.

One question for you JLM, would you be so cavalier about keeping this program going you weren't a beneficiary? How about if it was a program that gave $6,000 to everyone that was under 5 feet tall. Would you still think it was acceptable?

No one, yourself included has given a reasonable reason why OAS exists. The only reason we're hearing is they are getting their tax $ back, which is hogwash because there is NO requirement to pay any taxes in the first place!

Come on, if you can't come up a "real" reason besides the obvious vote buying reason, shouldn't this program be scrapped and the $32 Billion be reallocated to more beneficial programs?

 

[JLM]

It's beyond me where anyone can justify giving $6,000 to someone that already has and income of $71,000. That's more than the poverty line for a family of 4!!!

Hey Da, how about you trying to come up with a valid reason to tax the poor to give to the rich? I'm still waiting to hear 1 good reason.

One question for you JLM, would you be so cavalier about keeping this program going you weren't a beneficiary? How about if it was a program that gave $6,000 to everyone that was under 5 feet tall. Would you still think it was acceptable?

No one, yourself included has given a reasonable reason why OAS exists. The only reason we're hearing is they are getting their tax $ back, which is hogwash because there is NO requirement to pay any taxes in the first place!

Come on, if you can't come up a "real" reason besides the obvious vote buying reason, shouldn't this program be scrapped and the $32 Billion be reallocated to more beneficial programs?

I suppose if we were back at square one and it was up to me to implement a program to help the elderly destitute, I would do it differently no doubt, but that's not where we are at and "changing horses in mid stream" is seldom productive. If we did, where would we draw the line? If everyone isn't eligible then fraud arises and people would be hiding income, and there is no way you are going to stop "under the table" income. It would just be "a can of worms" you'd never get the lid back on. So the best solution to it is what's happening now, give it to everyone and tax back the excess. Hopefully this will close the subject.

 

[DaSleeper]

At $71,000.00 He is already paying back his OAS in income tax and more....
Canadian Income Tax Calculator 2012 | Life Insurance Canada

 

[tibear]

I suppose if we were back at square one and it was up to me to implement a program to help the elderly destitute, I would do it differently no doubt, but that's not where we are at and "changing horses in mid stream" is seldom productive. If we did, where would we draw the line? If everyone isn't eligible then fraud arises and people would be hiding income, and there is no way you are going to stop "under the table" income. It would just be "a can of worms" you'd never get the lid back on. So the best solution to it is what's happening now, give it to everyone and tax back the excess. Hopefully this will close the subject.

So do you propose the same for the social assistance program? Should everyone receive social assistance cheques every months and clawback amounts for everyone that make more than $71,000 annually? You don't believe that people are hiding income today to avoid the clawback?

Can't you see how stupid that whole OAS system is. No matter how you look at it, it really doesn't make any sense.

At least I'm glad that you acknowledge that if the system didn't exist that you would have problems with its current implementation.

At $71,000.00 He is already paying back his OAS in income tax and more....
Canadian Income Tax Calculator 2012 | Life Insurance Canada

And so does everyone 64 and under who makes $71,000 and doesn't collect any of the $6,000 voter kickback.

 

[JLM]

So do you propose the same for the social assistance program? Should everyone receive social assistance cheques every months and clawback amounts for everyone that make more than $71,000 annually? You don't believe that people are hiding income today to avoid the clawback?

Can't you see how stupid that whole OAS system is. No matter how you look at it, it really doesn't make any sense.

At least I'm glad that you acknowledge that if the system didn't exist that you would have problems with its current implementation.



And so does everyone 64 and under who makes $71,000 and doesn't collect any of the $6,000 voter kickback.

You don't stop do you? WHY would it matter what I think? I'm not destitute, ask someone with no income how stupid OAS is! I've just come across a hell of a good idea. You run for M.P. and include it in your platform!