Governments spend too much on Seniors

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
141
63
Backwater, Ontario.
""According to the newspaper article 15% of canadians receive OAS which means that the total paid out is more like $32 Billion paid out annually that as you say is going directly into the bank or being used for hobbies like travel or golf."""


Right, and oil change for the caddy. - Paying the bills - deciding whether to eat tuna or cat food.- or eating or paying the rent - or buying shoes.- travel to the food bank - hobbies like seeing how long one can go without basic necessities.

Living life large, that's a lot of us.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
darkbeaver;1738867 That certainly would have been a banker who told you such a big lie. We make nothing while we borrow from the private banks. We will never repay the debt said:
Well, that lying banker is a member of this forum, because that's who gave me the information. Come on out and show yourself you coward! -:)

""According to the newspaper article 15% of canadians receive OAS which means that the total paid out is more like $32 Billion paid out annually that as you say is going directly into the bank or being used for hobbies like travel or golf."""


Right, and oil change for the caddy. - Paying the bills - deciding whether to eat tuna or cat food.- or eating or paying the rent - or buying shoes.- travel to the food bank - hobbies like seeing how long one can go without basic necessities.

Living life large, that's a lot of us.

So the feeblest 15% of the population receives 13% of the budget, contrary to tibear's contention that what the seniors receive isn't fair, seems very fair to me. -:)
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
Well, that lying banker is a member of this forum, because that's who gave me the information. Come on out and show yourself you coward! -:)



So the feeblest 15% of the population receives 13% of the budget, contrary to tibear's contention that what the seniors receive isn't fair, seems very fair to me. -:)

You read what darkbeaver said. The bankers think we going to repay it.. :lol: What a bunch of fools!
Can't repay it if where all dead.......:p

It's all making perfect sense.... Don't have any kids, and open the flood gates for immigration!!!!
They'll never know what hit them.
 
Last edited:

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
You read what darkbeaver said. The bankers think we going to repay it.. :lol: What a bunch of fools!
Can't repay it if where all dead.......:p

It's all making perfect sense.... Don't have any kids, and open the flood gates for immigration!!!!
They'll never know what hit them.

Maybe I'm dumb, but I can't get the drift of this post. Can anyone else help?

In the end most of the taxes go to the international banks.

Is there a link for that?
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
That's an excellent point. In "fairness," the young benefit massively from infrastructure they had no part in building. They are also heavily subsidised by the government, and that subsidy was paid for by the taxes paid by the people who are now seniors.

That would all be true if it were done with cash instead of borrowed money. The "younger folks" are saddle with billions of dollars in debt that they will be paying on for their entire life so I take issue with the notion that seniors have "given" anything to the younger generations. They have, in effect, maxed out their credit card and dumped it on their kids.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
I remember in the U.S. a few years ago there was a coordinated attack on Social Security and Medicare by some punks hired by the banking and insurance industries.. all part of the Free Market drive for AUSTERITY. The more pain and inequity they can inflict on the society.. the more pliable their markets and the greater the profit potential. Someone is behind this dismal punk at the Winnipeg Free Press.. and you should look to the usual suspects in the Global Investment Organism.

The fact of the matter is that the ONLY threat to Canadian prosperity is if we follow their maxims of polarization of weath.. and Libertarianism .. especially those of free trade, monetarism, privatization and deregulation (especially of the financial and investment industries).

We essentially owe everything we have to our seniors... and our own cildren will some day inherit all we have created. Sadly our generation has really dropped the ball by betraying the economic principles on which Canada was built.. which includes protected industry by way of tariffs, control of the currency, regulation of the financial industry, progressive taxation, equitable distribution of wealth and the establishment of an integrated national industrial economy which includes public ownership on key natural monopolies (in natural resources, energy, communication and transportation).

We've let fools and charlatons.. Mulroney, Chretien, Harper.. sell out our national potential.. and let @$$holes (like Mia Rabson of the WFP) turn the blame on our parents.

When ever you see that argument that we are 'mortgaging our future generation'.. whether its about AGW or public debt be aware that you are being SCAMMED by an agenda that cares nothing about you or your offspring. It essentially attempts to appeal to a high sense of altruism but its intent is enrichment of a small group of oligarchs and their henchmen.. at the cost of everybody else.
 
Last edited:

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Though I don't necessarily agree with it, at least he went to the bother of clearly articulating his view rather than dropping an quick ad hominem.

If a guy wants to change his opinion there is nothing wrong with that, just say that's what you are doing. The reason I got so upset with him was his denigration of seniors a year or so back and because I happened to be one I was just dirt under his feet. Now he speaks quite highly of them, but he's never apologized for his boorishness so I suspect he's changed his tune because he knows his original position is an unpopular one and if there's one thing I can't stand too much of it's hypocrisy. Everyone is guilty of a little bit. -:)
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Ah negative, money does not just recycle around the planet. Circulation and supply in the west are private and closely throttled by private international banks who are untouchable by the Bank of Canada or the government of Canada despite the rubbish we hear from Flaterty.
Still a closed system. But I agree, I should not have stuck the word "just" in there. However, it is not as if the money is locked away in some safe never to be seen again. It is still working even if it is working for your conspirators.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Still a closed system. But I agree, I should not have stuck the word "just" in there. However, it is not as if the money is locked away in some safe never to be seen again. It is still working even if it is working for your conspirators.

Most of what we call money is a notation against columns in bank ledgers. The actual wealth does not exist until you sweat.
Here's the eternal formula followed by the money changers, silver/gold/ledger=arms industry=conquest/war=stolen wealth. Without that ancient power train modern economics won't work.


The Babylonian Woe-----------David Astle

Search around for that book on the net. It's a ripping good, if not very depressing, history of the money con.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Though I don't necessarily agree with it, at least he went to the bother of clearly articulating his view rather than dropping an quick ad hominem.

If a guy wants to change his opinion there is nothing wrong with that, just say that's what you are doing. The reason I got so upset with him was his denigration of seniors a year or so back and because I happened to be one I was just dirt under his feet. Now he speaks quite highly of them, but he's never apologized for his boorishness so I suspect he's changed his tune because he knows his original position is an unpopular one and if there's one thing I can't stand too much of it's hypocrisy. Everyone is guilty of a little bit. -:)

Pay no mind to JLM Zipperfish. He got upset with me because I took him to task on his attacks on "the younger generations". I have no issue with seniors. I have an issue with seniors who believe I owe them something simply because they were born before 1948. JLM falls into this category. I believe we have limited financial resources and we need to target them where they are most needed. Generally speaking, seniors are not in need. That does not mean we shouldn't help seniors that are in need.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
If a guy wants to change his opinion there is nothing wrong with that, just say that's what you are doing. The reason I got so upset with him was his denigration of seniors a year or so back and because I happened to be one I was just dirt under his feet. Now he speaks quite highly of them, but he's never apologized for his boorishness so I suspect he's changed his tune because he knows his original position is an unpopular one and if there's one thing I can't stand too much of it's hypocrisy. Everyone is guilty of a little bit. -:)

Fair 'nuff. I get mad at seniors sometimes too. Baby boomers, I mean. Coddled, self-absorbed generation. But then I think, they didn't really do anything wrong. They were just born into this demographic that was so huge it simply gathered the rest of society into its orbit. How could you not be self-absorbed when everything changes to suit you? You can't really get mad at that. Probably Douglas Copeland's Gen X helped me realize that. Besides, by being bitter, alll I'm doing is fulfilling the Gen X stereotype of...well...being bitter. :lol
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Pay no mind to JLM Zipperfish. He got upset with me because I took him to task on his attacks on "the younger generations". I have no issue with seniors. I have an issue with seniors who believe I owe them something simply because they were born before 1948. JLM falls into this category. I believe we have limited financial resources and we need to target them where they are most needed. Generally speaking, seniors are not in need. That does not mean we shouldn't help seniors that are in need.

I recall it differently.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
""According to the newspaper article 15% of canadians receive OAS which means that the total paid out is more like $32 Billion paid out annually that as you say is going directly into the bank or being used for hobbies like travel or golf."""


Right, and oil change for the caddy. - Paying the bills - deciding whether to eat tuna or cat food.- or eating or paying the rent - or buying shoes.- travel to the food bank - hobbies like seeing how long one can go without basic necessities.

Living life large, that's a lot of us.
Nuggler, are you spending a month in the Bahamas again this year?
 

tibear

Electoral Member
Jan 25, 2005
854
0
16
That would all be true if it were done with cash instead of borrowed money. The "younger folks" are saddle with billions of dollars in debt that they will be paying on for their entire life so I take issue with the notion that seniors have "given" anything to the younger generations. They have, in effect, maxed out their credit card and dumped it on their kids.

100% agree

I am a late arrival-indulge me - ours is 5 high end figures.

I'm five years from retiring and save income level.

Generally speaking, Canadians pay over 50% of their incomes in overall taxes. So, for every dollar Canada gives out to its citizens for whatever reason, they get it back in taxes of one sort or another. So, out of the $32 Billion paid out to OAS, $16 billion will probably end up back in general revenue. Where does the rest go to: personal rent, utility bills, car payments, increased health costs, etc. All of it taxable.

Again, if that is such a good idea then give everyone social assistance since we could all use help with our personal rent, utility bills, car payments, increased health costs, etc.

What's the problem with that scenario?