Governments spend too much on Seniors

[Goober]

Karma Man dropped by - Damm - I can only give 1 green-



Keeping Kaerma man busy I see



And agin.

Appears Karma Man's mission is working.

 

[JLM]

Sissy? What is your definition of a sissy?

Have any of your grand kids been to this site and read what you have posted?

Sissy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -
Most people of normal intelligence know the definition of "sissy" by grade two, my first inclination was to tell you to look in the mirror, but that might be p.i. so I've sent you the official definition. I doubt if my grand children have gone to this site whatever that has to do with anything. -

 

[Cannuck]

Most people of normal intelligence know the definition of "sissy" by grade two

I know but I was asking for your definition. I've always felt the term was misogynistic. I'm not really surprised you would use it.

 

[JLM]

I know but I was asking for your definition. I've always felt the term was misogynistic. I'm not really surprised you would use it.

When in doubt Webster's dictionary works or Oxford Dictionary or Funk & Wagnalls.

 

[Cannuck]

When in doubt Webster's dictionary works or Oxford Dictionary or Funk & Wagnalls.

If you want the Oxford or Funk and Wagnalls definition. I just wanted to clarify that that is what you meant. Glad you cleared it up.

 

[tibear]

And pretty well all those beliefs were correct. You should drop this O.A.P. sh*t. You'll be collecting it one day (if someone doesn't shoot you first) Who the hell do YOU think pays for O.A.P.? Pretty well every nickel generated in this country comes from the citizens or the work they do. I know you'd like to change the O.A.P. so the amount exactly coincides with need, I'm not exactly stupid! But how are you going to do that? Some people's wealth doesn't show up on paper. Every one has different circumstances that require varying amounts of money. So it would be most unreliable to think that one guy whose income is $40,000 deserves less than another whose income is $35,000 a year. How many $s are you proposing to blow on bureaucracy? Better just to leave it as is and let the really hard cases come forward for the G.I.S. How many "unemployed" elderly are working for pay "under the table"? You really want to get that can of worms opened up? Speaking of worms, maybe a guy makes $25 selling worms out of his garden to fishermen? You really want to get into that? Sometimes it's better to let "sleeping dogs" lie.



Hey Einstein, I don't have to show you F**k all! What business of yours is MY pension? You come and call me a liar to my face and you'll be jamming a tooth brush up your A$$ to clean your teeth. I've been more than reasonable, in replying to your illegable and misspelled screeds.

JLM, as you point out there already is a system in place (GIS) for determining if a sernior needs extra money, so it wouldn't add any bureaucracy. People are already hiding money from revenue canada and would it get worse if seniors lost their OAS, maybe a little bit yet. But I would think that people that would contemplate doing this are doing it now.

You're right that a person making $40K and year may need more than the person making $35K a year and depending on their situation that is what the GIS and social assistance is for isn't it?

As for you pension, all I was pointing out is the only person that can prove that you did or didn't have a choice when you retired is you. Obviously there is no documentation on the net from 15 years back. You don't need to show the $ involved just the documentation which showed that you didn't have any choice but to integrate your pension with OAS. I have my doubts because MY parents had that choice and they retired before you did.

By the way what Is that "Superannuation" you guys were talking about. I think I confused it with what was negotiated for my work place pension that we called "Bridging"
To make work for new employees and to encourage the older workers to retire before the age of 65, and extra 400$ was added to the pension. This , of course disappeared when you received OAS which at the time was about 400$

DaSleeper, Superannuation is simply another name for the Provincial pension plan. The "bridging" you're talking about is what the provincial pension plan called integration and it is exactly as you describe. You get a higher pension amount until you begin to collect OAS, however your pension is then reduced by the OAS amount to keep your overall income at the exact same level and before you collected OAS. Most people wouldn't take this option, perhaps the only ones that would are people that have a terminal illness and don't believe that they will make it to 65 or very much beyond.

 

[Angstrom]

JLM, as you point out there already is a system in place (GIS) for determining if a sernior needs extra money, so it wouldn't add any bureaucracy. People are already hiding money from revenue canada and would it get worse if seniors lost their OAS, maybe a little bit yet. But I would think that people that would contemplate doing this are doing it now.

You're right that a person making $40K and year may need more than the person making $35K a year and depending on their situation that is what the GIS and social assistance is for isn't it?

As for you pension, all I was pointing out is the only person that can prove that you did or didn't have a choice when you retired is you. Obviously there is no documentation on the net from 15 years back. You don't need to show the $ involved just the documentation which showed that you didn't have any choice but to integrate your pension with OAS. I have my doubts because MY parents had that choice and they retired before you did.



DaSleeper, Superannuation is simply another name for the Provincial pension plan. The "bridging" you're talking about is what the provincial pension plan called integration and it is exactly as you describe. You get a higher pension amount until you begin to collect OAS, however your pension is then reduced by the OAS amount to keep your overall income at the exact same level and before you collected OAS. Most people wouldn't take this option, perhaps the only ones that would are people that have a terminal illness and don't believe that they will make it to 65 or very much beyond.

Ok cdnbear. You been trolling.

 

[SLM]

The only thing government spends too much money on is themselves. Bonuses, perks, gold plated pension plans. The citizens of this nation, be they seniors or the disabled or just down on their luck, those with poor health, poor education, etc, those are the ones that the money should be spent on. In short, the money should be benefiting all of us. The reason it doesn't is it's freaking mismanaged in every way, shape and form. $3.1 billion for Security? Whoops, can't find it! Hundreds of millions in cancelled contracts? Yeah should've read the fine print before they signed it. I wonder if any of them will be doing without as a result? Some how I think they won't be.

But go ahead, keep sniping at each other over whether this amount gets spent here or spent in a slightly different place. In the end all that means is that the real focus is not on where it should be, on government accountability or lack thereof.

 

[Cannuck]

But go ahead, keep sniping at each other over whether this amount gets spent here or spent in a slightly different place. In the end all that means is that the real focus is not on where it should be, on government accountability or lack thereof.

There is enough of that on other threads. In case you haven't been keeping track, Conservative supporters think the government is doing a wonderful job. The rest think they suck. A few years ago, it was the Liberal supporters that thought the government was doing a great job while the rest thought they sucked.

 

[JLM]

DaSleeper, Superannuation is simply another name for the Provincial pension plan. The "bridging" you're talking about is what the provincial pension plan called integration and it is exactly as you describe. You get a higher pension amount until you begin to collect OAS, however your pension is then reduced by the OAS amount to keep your overall income at the exact same level and before you collected OAS. Most people wouldn't take this option, perhaps the only ones that would are people that have a terminal illness and don't believe that they will make it to 65 or very much beyond.

Actually after you start collecting O.A.S. your gross income is about $300 less than before.

The only thing government spends too much money on is themselves. Bonuses, perks, gold plated pension plans. The citizens of this nation, be they seniors or the disabled or just down on their luck, those with poor health, poor education, etc, those are the ones that the money should be spent on. In short, the money should be benefiting all of us. The reason it doesn't is it's freaking mismanaged in every way, shape and form. $3.1 billion for Security? Whoops, can't find it! Hundreds of millions in cancelled contracts? Yeah should've read the fine print before they signed it. I wonder if any of them will be doing without as a result? Some how I think they won't be.

But go ahead, keep sniping at each other over whether this amount gets spent here or spent in a slightly different place. In the end all that means is that the real focus is not on where it should be, on government accountability or lack thereof.

There's one thing that really gripes me, S.L.M. and that is the severance packages paid out every time there is a change of gov't. That is absolutely criminal, everyone knows gov't. can depend on a term of approx 4 years before they are liable to be turfed. Deputy Ministers know full well the new minister of whatever could have a friend he/she wants parachuted into the position.

 

[DaSleeper]

DaSleeper, Superannuation is simply another name for the Provincial pension plan. The "bridging" you're talking about is what the provincial pension plan called integration and it is exactly as you describe. You get a higher pension amount until you begin to collect OAS, however your pension is then reduced by the OAS amount to keep your overall income at the exact same level and before you collected OAS. Most people wouldn't take this option, perhaps the only ones that would are people that have a terminal illness and don't believe that they will make it to 65 or very much beyond.

Actually, The "Bridging" I was talking about was not an Option....it is there for everybody...a negotiated item between the company and the employee's union....and the reason the union negotiated, was to entice employees to retire as early as 58 to give work to someone else (which the way I figure it, my retiring at 58 gave someone 7 years of employment which is one I don't feel any guilt about collecting OAS) BTW this bridging of mine has nothing to do with how much OAS I receive.
Since the pension we have at the mill is variable......meaning the my monthly amount I get is dependant not only on the table of my years of service times a percentage of my top three years yearly income but also on how much survivor benefit I wanted to leave my wife.
For that reason, .I did what everyone should do; We both took an extensive physical.....If it had turned out I had cancer or some other terminal disease I would have taken the option that left her the most upon my demise.
If it had been the other way around, or my wife had a job with a pension of her own, I would have taken 100% like a single man
The combination I choose among many was 70% of my pension to leave her 50% when I die.

That 7 years of work at rate of $70,000. more than makes up for the OAS I have been receiving and will continue to receive non?

 

[Chev]

“Pensioners with an individual net income above $70,954 for 2013 must repay part or all of the maximum Old Age Security pension amount. The full OAS pension is eliminated when a pensioner's net income is $114,640 or above.”
“…above $70,954 for 2013…”
Holy Crap!! Repay part or all!?! I work full time and don't even make that much in a year. They should not even be able to apply for or given OAS.
What is everyones opinion on “A minimum of 10 years of residence in Canada after reaching age 18 is required to receive a pension in Canada.”? So people could come to Canada, example age 54, not work or pay any taxes and apply for OAS at age 65??

My problem with government spending and their knee jerk reaction to everything, is.

Everything has its limitation. There are thing no one can change in this world no matter
how much money you throw at it. You can maybe influence something a little bit with
Government spending but most of the time the cost/effect ratio is not worth it.

Good leadership is understanding that, and not ignoring it just to win over "the dummy" vote.
We are doomed to overspend. When "The Dummy" vote guaranty's you a
Majority government

"The Dummy" vote guaranty's you a Majority government."
This sounds exactly like Edmonton city council but that's another story altogether.

 

[DaSleeper]

Everything you wanted to know about OAS, when you don't believe forum rumours an rants;-)

Old Age Security Pension (OAS) - Service Canada

 

[tibear]

Ok cdnbear. You been trolling.

Why would you say that???

The only thing government spends too much money on is themselves. Bonuses, perks, gold plated pension plans. The citizens of this nation, be they seniors or the disabled or just down on their luck, those with poor health, poor education, etc, those are the ones that the money should be spent on. In short, the money should be benefiting all of us. The reason it doesn't is it's freaking mismanaged in every way, shape and form. $3.1 billion for Security? Whoops, can't find it! Hundreds of millions in cancelled contracts? Yeah should've read the fine print before they signed it. I wonder if any of them will be doing without as a result? Some how I think they won't be.

But go ahead, keep sniping at each other over whether this amount gets spent here or spent in a slightly different place. In the end all that means is that the real focus is not on where it should be, on government accountability or lack thereof.

I tend to agree with you SLM. The only problem I have with you post is that if you look at all the items you said the government should spend money on: seniors, disabled, down on their luck, poor health, poor education. Don't you think that it's like the old Sesame Street song....One of things just doesn't belong here, One of these things just isn't the same....

The people that are disabled, down on their luck, poor health and poor education all have a very good chance of having a very low income. It certainly doesn't preclude them from earning a good salary but I would think that it is certainly an obstacle to overcome. However, just because you're a senior isn't an obstacle to making a good salary. Now if the senior has poor health or is disabled then they fall into your other categories and should receive assistance from the government but being a senior is not a "disease" or obstacle that causes people to be in need of assistance is it?

Everything you wanted to know about OAS, when you don't believe forum rumours an rants;-)

Old Age Security Pension (OAS) - Service Canada

And when have I portrayed the OAS as anything but what it really is? Have I raised the minimum clawback amount or lowered the maximum? Have I misquoted how the money is obtained or dispurchased? Exactly what are the "rumours" that are false that you would like to accuse me of making?

Actually, The "Bridging" I was talking about was not an Option....it is there for everybody...a negotiated item between the company and the employee's union....and the reason the union negotiated, was to entice employees to retire as early as 58 to give work to someone else (which the way I figure it, my retiring at 58 gave someone 7 years of employment which is one I don't feel any guilt about collecting OAS) BTW this bridging of mine has nothing to do with how much OAS I receive.
Since the pension we have at the mill is variable......meaning the my monthly amount I get is dependant not only on the table of my years of service times a percentage of my top three years yearly income but also on how much survivor benefit I wanted to leave my wife.
For that reason, .I did what everyone should do; We both took an extensive physical.....If it had turned out I had cancer or some other terminal disease I would have taken the option that left her the most upon my demise.
If it had been the other way around, or my wife had a job with a pension of her own, I would have taken 100% like a single man
The combination I choose among many was 70% of my pension to leave her 50% when I die.

That 7 years of work at rate of $70,000. more than makes up for the OAS I have been receiving and will continue to receive non?

DaSleeper, you may be perfectly correct and that is how your pension is set up. However, JLM indicated that he is collecting "superannuation" which is a provincial pension, which I and my mother were also members of. I know what my options are and proved it by showing the documentation from the pension website and know what my mother's options were because I remember speaking to her about what took place when he began to collect OAS. Yes, she did collect OAS, which doesn't mean that concept of giving money is away for no good reason isn't a bad idea. Just that my parents, as most people do, take advantage of any situation that would give them additional income. I do know that they did increase their charitable donations once they started to receive OAS so I guess that you could say that some of the OAS money was going to the needy, through my parents.

 

[DaSleeper]

And when have I portrayed the OAS as anything but what it really is? Have I raised the minimum clawback amount or lowered the maximum? Have I misquoted how the money is obtained or dispurchased? Exactly what are the "rumours" that are false that you would like to accuse me of making?

I wouldn't know cause I merely browse over rants such as yours, that are simply repeats of the same post ad-nauseum .
Quit your crying or get into politics and quit trying to shove your agenda down our throats....

 

[JLM]

DaSleeper, you may be perfectly correct and that is how your pension is set up. However, JLM indicated that he is collecting "superannuation" which is a provincial pension, which I and my mother were also members of. I know what my options are and proved it by showing the documentation from the pension website and know what my mother's options were because I remember speaking to her about what took place when he began to collect OAS. Yes, she did collect OAS, which doesn't mean that concept of giving money is away for no good reason isn't a bad idea. Just that my parents, as most people do, take advantage of any situation that would give them additional income. I do know that they did increase their charitable donations once they started to receive OAS so I guess that you could say that some of the OAS money was going to the needy, through my parents.

tibear- I know you have a hard on about my collecting O.A.S. Why? My total Superann payment is $31,906.68 per annum, my income tax on that is $3957.36 per annum, I pay $504 for extended health and $904.56 for dental coverage. So what is your problem with my collecting O.A.S.? Please either answer it or quit alluding to me in your devious posts.

 

[tibear]

tibear- I know you have a hard on about my collecting O.A.S. Why? My total Superann payment is $31,906.68 per annum, my income tax on that is $3957.36 per annum, I pay $504 for extended health and $904.56 for dental coverage. So what is your problem with my collecting O.A.S.? Please either answer it or quit alluding to me in your devious posts.

JLM, maybe that's the problem. You see this as a personal attack when it isn't. I've tried to say many times, that this concept of eliminating OAS isn't to take money away from people that need the money but make it easier for the government to help those people that need additional help.

In your situation, I would have no problem if you got help but that is what the social assistance/GIS is for.

Again, this is NOT a personal attack on ANY senior but rather looking at the program in general and see if there are effeciencies that can be made and get more money to individual canadians and programs that need the money rather than to some seniors and other canadians that simply want the money.

I'm sure every parent has had the need vs want discussion with their children and this is simply an extension. Get rid of all the various individual programs: OAS, GIS, social assistance, child tax credit, child care subsidy, age exemption, etc. Some of these programs have needs requirements build right in so why can't we utilize them to the determine who the canadians are that really need help and help them?

Honestly, what's wrong with that proposal? Isn't it fair to everyone?

 

[JLM]

JLM, maybe that's the problem. You see this as a personal attack when it isn't. I've tried to say many times, that this concept of eliminating OAS isn't to take money away from people that need the money but make it easier for the government to help those people that need additional help.

In your situation, I would have no problem if you got help but that is what the social assistance/GIS is for.

Again, this is NOT a personal attack on ANY senior but rather looking at the program in general and see if there are effeciencies that can be made and get more money to individual canadians and programs that need the money rather than to some seniors and other canadians that simply want the money.

I'm sure every parent has had the need vs want discussion with their children and this is simply an extension. Get rid of all the various individual programs: OAS, GIS, social assistance, child tax credit, child care subsidy, age exemption, etc. Some of these programs have needs requirements build right in so why can't we utilize them to the determine who the canadians are that really need help and help them?

Honestly, what's wrong with that proposal? Isn't it fair to everyone?

Come on, you and Cannuck have been attacking me from the get go! Sure I agree that possibly 5% of those receiving it shouldn't be getting it, IF you want to set disposable income as the criteria. However changing it will cost more in red tape and bureaucracy than would be gained by it, not to mention cheating and hiding money.

 

[tibear]

Come on, you and Cannuck have been attacking me from the get go! Sure I agree that possibly 5% of those receiving it shouldn't be getting it, IF you want to set disposable income as the criteria. However changing it will cost more in red tape and bureaucracy than would be gained by it, not to mention cheating and hiding money.

I wouldn't say the get go but after you began to attack me but regardless you're right I shouldn't attack you and I apologize.

Getting back to the OAS question, which is the only thing that should be discussed, isn't the GIS in place already to take of needs assessment? As for cheating and hiding money, as I've said before I'm sure it happens already and will continue in the future this isn't a valid reason not to change the system. Heck, people beat their spouses and children all the time, does that mean we don't do something about it?

I seem to recall that there was one of your posts where you agree that OAS clawbacks should be altered because they were too high and even though I would prefer the OAS be eliminated, did change my stance and say that maybe having clawbacks starting at $25K and eliminate OAS at $50K would make sense because $50K is around the poverty line for a family of four in Canada. I then asked the question whether that was reasonable and got no response. Don't you think it is reasonable that if the government believes that a family of four can survive on $50K than 1 senior should be able to?

 

[Cannuck]

I wouldn't say the get go but after you began to attack me but regardless you're right I should attack you and I apologize.

I haven't seen you calling people *******s and idiots. You have nothing to apologize for.