Governments spend too much on Seniors

[Chev]

“PoliticalNick Post #22 Quote: Originally Posted bySal...on the other hand these kids will inherit likely more than any previous generation
Not likely....my parents, along with many other seniors I know, are very busy trying to spend every last dollar before they die and not on anything tangible of value to pass along but on trips and luxury dinners etc.”
“Jonny_C Post #25 Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNick Not likely....my parents, along with many other seniors I know, are very busy trying to spend every last dollar before they die and not on anything tangible of value to pass along but on trips and luxury dinners etc. Pretty dim view of your parents, and seniors in general. How much exactly do they owe you? God forbid anyone should have some fun.”
Not all seniors have a lot of money, or take many/various trips, and many don’t have houses any more as it’s not affordable.
Not all seniors are like Paul and his wife or Kate. I don’t understand how they can collect like they do. (As I posted earlier #432, this is from the government website: “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.)

 

[tibear]

All I can say is that it has been proven with statistics from government websites that the OAS clawback doesn't take affect until a senior makes $10-$30K more annually than what the government designates as sufficient income for a family of 7 or more and some of the seniors on this sites think not only is this acceptable but a requirement. We're not speaking about a senior couple's income clawback is more than a family of 7 or more.....this is only ONE senior's income. For a senior couple"s income they would receive $12-$14K annually on an income which could be $60K more annually than a family of 14 or more is expected to live on.

I think perhaps these seniors are not looking objectively at the situation because anyone who suggests this type of situation is acceptable is only thinking about themselves.

It reminds me of the Marie Antoinette comment when asked about the poor in France and what should be done to help them....."Let them eat cake." Meaning, I don't care. I'm happy with the current situation and don't want anything to change because it might affect me.

 

[DaSleeper]

Just a feeble attempt at humour in this boring thread! -

JLM the best way to stop an argument with someone is to quit responding to his arguments with more fodder for him to argue about, you can ridicule him, change the subject or even stay quiet, eventually he will look elsewhere;-)
The reason Quixote fought the windmills is because the damn blades wouldn't quit moving. :lol:

 

[tibear]

JLM the best way to stop an argument with someone is to quit responding to his arguments with more fodder for him to argue about, you can ridicule him, change the subject or even stay quiet, eventually he will look elsewhere;-)
The reason Quixote fought the windmills is because the damn blades wouldn't quit moving. :lol:

It will also verify the fact that you and others like yourselves are selfish and don't care about fairness or helping the less fortunate......it's all about you. That's fine if you're OK with that labelling but let's call a spade a spade.

As I said earlier, anyone who accepts the given OAS as fair is only thinking about themselves. If we had another program that had the exact same situation and your and others on this site didn't collect you would all be screaming from the rooftops to end the program.

I've seen many times just in this thread talk about government waste and how the government should clean up it's spending before looking at OAS. That is a prime example of the screaming I'm speaking about. If you were truly unbiased you wouldn't have any problem with what you perceive as government waste because there are other people who are benefitting from it just as you are with OAS. AND the funny part is that you refuse to acknowledge that you're bias and don't care about anyone but yourself.

 

[Sal]

JLM the best way to stop an argument with someone is to quit responding to his arguments with more fodder for him to argue about, you can ridicule him, change the subject or even stay quiet, eventually he will look elsewhere;-)
The reason Quixote fought the windmills is because the damn blades wouldn't quit moving. :lol:

he feels passionate about the subject and that is a good thing even if you disagree with his stance, he has a right to his opinion and should express it, otherwise there is no forum

 

[DaSleeper]

Could that be Cannuck on that A......hmmm...Animal behind ya?

 

[taxslave]

Living in a big city yes.

Under 50K your borrowing money to keep a middle class life style. Cancel your cable,
Internet. Quit smoking. Hope to god your car don't break down.

22K or under your living in government housing & making trips to the food bank.
Hood life. Your IN the ruff part of town. Not a good place to be raising up kids at all.

Here is a really good book to understand what is happening to families today.
‘Why Middle Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke’ - Money - TODAY.com
‘Why Middle Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke

Bankruptcy has become deeply entrenched in American life. This year, more people will end up bankrupt than will suffer a heart attack. More adults will file for bankruptcy than will be diagnosed with cancer. More people will file for bankruptcy than will graduate from college. And, in an era when traditionalists decry the demise of the institution of marriage, Americans will file more petitions for bankruptcy than for divorce. Heart attacks. Cancer. College graduations. Divorce. These are markers in the lives of nearly every American family. And yet, we will soon have more friends and coworkers who have gone through bankruptcy than any one of these other life events.

All that proves is that a good portion of the population has no clue about handling their finances and government and lenders has made it too easy for them to both get credit and to shirk their debts.

Where I live there are a great many rich pensioners and not many poor families. Mostly because the rich pensioners have drove up the cost of housing so high that the poor cannot afford to live here. Hell even working people can barely afford to live here since the few jobs around mostly do not pay well and many of us work elsewhere because said rich pensioners do not want any industry that might interfere with the lifestyle they want to create for themselves.

 

[JLM]

he feels passionate about the subject and that is a good thing even if you disagree with his stance, he has a right to his opinion and should express it, otherwise there is no forum

Basically, I agree with you Sal, that is for a person to present an opinion and debate it, but this has gotten a little beyond that, now it's just become a repetition about selfishness and greed. We've all heard that about 10 times now, not to mention the denigration of a certain demographic. There is nothing wrong with suggesting a shift in Gov't spending, but his proposal does not guarantee an improvement in the shift! -

 

[gerryh]

As I said earlier, anyone who accepts the given OAS as fair is only thinking about themselves.

Actually, it's those wanting to take away from the seniors that are only thinking of themselves. Selfish and self centered.

 

[Sal]

Basically, I agree with you Sal, that is for a person to present an opinion and debate it, but this has gotten a little beyond that, now it's just become a repetition about selfishness and greed. We've all heard that about 10 times now, not to mention the denigration of a certain demographic. There is nothing wrong with suggesting a shift in Gov't spending, but his proposal does not guarantee an improvement in the shift! -

yes...he thinks he is right... others that he is wrong...it doesn't mean he is stupid, he just has no confidence in the youth of today to find their own way. I do.


it was also suggested that people who support it are merely out for themselves and do not want to lose anything...to that I say, bingo...correct, I am looking out for myself...how stupid would I be not to..so I have no problem with his stance or his conclusion...

call me selfish, just give me my money... no problem

I might add, perhaps he is in actually young and just arguing for himself and his generation, I have no problem with that either as long as he doesn't win until I finish collecting, then he can give his portion to the youth

 

[Cannuck]

Where do you get $50,000 as the poverty level for a family of 4? I know bugger all about it but I'm going to throw out a figure of $22,000 as the poverty level for a family of four.

By the Numbers: Income distribution and the poverty line || UFCW Canada - Canada’s Largest Private Sector Union

In 2009, half of Canadians were living on less than
$25,400.


►In 2009, the low income cut-offs (LICOs) – also known as the poverty line –
for after tax incomes were as follows:


1 person: $18,421


2 persons: $22,420


3 persons: $27,918


4 persons: $34,829

Actually, it's those wanting to take away from the seniors that are only thinking of themselves. Selfish and self centered.

Nobody is "wanting to take away from seniors"? At least not on this thread. Some of us just want our tax dollars targeted where they are needed most. Those supporting the status quo have not shown that this is the case.

 

[Goober]

Table 4 Market Basket Measure (MBM) thresholds, disposable income for reference family of two adults and two children, by MBM region

Those Stats show it is more expensive in PEI than Edmonton-Possibly due to food and fuel costs- much higher in the Maritimes.
As to LICO - Low Income Cut-Off
Over the past decade or so these have become more standardized- Yet you can still find large variances in what is considered LICO by various Orgs- Govt.
Low income cut-offs

Rebasing and indexing the LICOs
Over time, Canadian families have spent a smaller percentage of their income on the necessities of food, shelter and clothing. This relationship between families’ income and spending is associated with a specific point in time, i.e. the year of the expenditure survey used to derive the cut-offs. That particular year is referred to as the base year for the set of cut-offs. In order to account for changing spending patterns, Statistics Canada has in the past recalculated new LICOs after each subsequent Family Expenditure Survey. This process is referred to as rebasing and includes recalculating new LICOs using the method described in ’How are low income cut-offs calculated?’ and the new spending data. In addition to the 1992 base, LICOs have also been based on the 1986, 1978, 1969 and 1959 Family Expenditure Surveys; although cut-offs based on 1992 are the most commonly used and are available for the income reference years from 1976 onwards.8

After having calculated LICOs in the base year, cut-offs for other years are obtained by applying the corresponding Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rate to the cut-offs from the base year – the process of indexing the LICOs. The CPI are provided at the end of this document. For example, continuing with the 1992 after-tax LICO for a family of four living in an community with a population between 30,000 and 99,999; to calculate the corresponding LICO for 2011, the Consumer Price Index is used as follows:

LICO2011 = LICO1992 x CPI2011 / CPI1992 = 21,359 x 119.9 / 84.0 =30,487

Thus for 2011, the 1992 based after-tax LICO for a family of four living in an community with a population between 30,000 and 99,999 is $30,487, expressed in current dollars.

Because the LICOs only depend on the annual Consumer Price Index, they can be produced as soon as the CPI is available, that is January following the reference year.

Note that using the CPI to update the cut-offs takes inflation into account, but does not reflect any changes that might occur over time in the average spending on necessities.


Revision of Low Income Cut-Off: 2011 Figures from 11 July, 2012 - 12:14 | Alberta Social Policy Framework

http://gwpoverty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/02.-OLDER-ADULTS-LIVING-IN-LOW-INCOME2.pdf

 

[Angstrom]

All that proves is that a good portion of the population has no clue about handling their finances and government and lenders has made it too easy for them to both get credit and to shirk their debts.

Where I live there are a great many rich pensioners and not many poor families. Mostly because the rich pensioners have drove up the cost of housing so high that the poor cannot afford to live here. Hell even working people can barely afford to live here since the few jobs around mostly do not pay well and many of us work elsewhere because said rich pensioners do not want any industry that might interfere with the lifestyle they want to create for themselves.

Lets break it down for a year.
12 000$ for house
2 200$ for heat and electricity.
9 000$ for grocery
5 000$ for car and repairs
3 000$ for gas for the car
1 500$ for insurance
2 000$ for birthdays
2 000$ for holiday visits and presents
5 000$ for your second car
3 000$ for phone Internet cable

Where at 45 000$ and we haven't even talked of health care
Like dentice, glasses, chiropractor.
Then we need to add putting away money for retirement.
You need to replace at least one appliance or bed every year.
New pillows, etc....

Add a good 5 000$ for that and that's if your lucky.
Would you call a middle class's family " middle class" if they have no pets? Not me.
2 000$ more for the pet.

If you own your home, you need yard stuff & repaires on your home.
That could add up really fast on you.
5 000$

What are we at to live middle class now?
57 000$

Ok we need to save for the kids school
2 000$

Then you have clothing
2 000$

Every middle class family should have at least 1 000$ a month of disposable/or for savings.
12 000$

Anything under 75 000$ a year.
A family is not living a full middle class life style.

 

[tibear]

Actually, it's those wanting to take away from the seniors that are only thinking of themselves. Selfish and self centered.

Not once, have I said to remove the OAS and reduce taxes....not once. I've said remove the OAS, or dramatically reduce the clawback to something reasonable and use the money to help poor Canadians.

yes...he thinks he is right... others that he is wrong...it doesn't mean he is stupid, he just has no confidence in the youth of today to find their own way. I do.


it was also suggested that people who support it are merely out for themselves and do not want to lose anything...to that I say, bingo...correct, I am looking out for myself...how stupid would I be not to..so I have no problem with his stance or his conclusion...

call me selfish, just give me my money... no problem

I might add, perhaps he is in actually young and just arguing for himself and his generation, I have no problem with that either as long as he doesn't win until I finish collecting, then he can give his portion to the youth

Sal, you're 100% right, except for two points. I have a great deal of confidence in our youth, it's just I don't we think we should be burdening them with supporting their parents and grandparents that don't need help. And the point where you say that I'm young. As I said, I've 5 years from retirement.

Too bad the other seniors that are bashing me can't admit to their own selfishness and biases.

Those Stats show it is more expensive in PEI than Edmonton-Possibly due to food and fuel costs- much higher in the Maritimes.
As to LICO - Low Income Cut-Off
Over the past decade or so these have become more standardized- Yet you can still find large variances in what is considered LICO by various Orgs- Govt.
Low income cut-offs

Rebasing and indexing the LICOs
Over time, Canadian families have spent a smaller percentage of their income on the necessities of food, shelter and clothing. This relationship between families’ income and spending is associated with a specific point in time, i.e. the year of the expenditure survey used to derive the cut-offs. That particular year is referred to as the base year for the set of cut-offs. In order to account for changing spending patterns, Statistics Canada has in the past recalculated new LICOs after each subsequent Family Expenditure Survey. This process is referred to as rebasing and includes recalculating new LICOs using the method described in ’How are low income cut-offs calculated?’ and the new spending data. In addition to the 1992 base, LICOs have also been based on the 1986, 1978, 1969 and 1959 Family Expenditure Surveys; although cut-offs based on 1992 are the most commonly used and are available for the income reference years from 1976 onwards.8

After having calculated LICOs in the base year, cut-offs for other years are obtained by applying the corresponding Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rate to the cut-offs from the base year – the process of indexing the LICOs. The CPI are provided at the end of this document. For example, continuing with the 1992 after-tax LICO for a family of four living in an community with a population between 30,000 and 99,999; to calculate the corresponding LICO for 2011, the Consumer Price Index is used as follows:

LICO2011 = LICO1992 x CPI2011 / CPI1992 = 21,359 x 119.9 / 84.0 =30,487

Thus for 2011, the 1992 based after-tax LICO for a family of four living in an community with a population between 30,000 and 99,999 is $30,487, expressed in current dollars.

Because the LICOs only depend on the annual Consumer Price Index, they can be produced as soon as the CPI is available, that is January following the reference year.

Note that using the CPI to update the cut-offs takes inflation into account, but does not reflect any changes that might occur over time in the average spending on necessities.


Revision of Low Income Cut-Off: 2011 Figures from 11 July, 2012 - 12:14 | Alberta Social Policy Framework

http://gwpoverty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/02.-OLDER-ADULTS-LIVING-IN-LOW-INCOME2.pdf

Goober, thanks for providing the last website link it was very interesting. It also confirms that currently only 6% of seniors are living in a low income situation. Another 19% make just enough not to qualify for additional government benefits. So being extremely conservative at most 25% of seniors require help from government. The rest of the Canadian seniors are doing just fine with respect to government set low income levels.

So surely if the low income levels is OK with most seniors on this site for the rest of Canadian society that it should be fine for seniors.....right?

Meaning any senior that makes more than $23K annually doesn't need any additional government funds.

You may claim that this is "attacking" seniors but in fact all I done is provide statistics from government and poverty websites (some provided by the seniors that are against my position) to show the unfairness of the current situation with regards to OAS.

Could that be Cannuck on that A......hmmm...Animal behind ya?

And yet another personal attack...........

 

[Sal]

Sal, you're 100% right, except for two points. I have a great deal of confidence in our youth, it's just I don't we think we should be burdening them with supporting their parents and grandparents that don't need help. And the point where you say that I'm young. As I said, I've 5 years from retirement.

Too bad the other seniors that are bashing me can't admit to their own selfishness and biases.

we're still young dammit, you are only a tad older than me....lol... I am going down into that good night fighting...youth will find their own way tibear...I hear what you are saying about need. It's like mother's allowance... they should kick half of them off of it and double the income of the rest for the ones that actually need it... but when they government gives away money even when someone would die without it, people balk if it is more than subsistant living. It's the way we have been raised. My parents being immigrants would have starved first before taking a penny that they did not feel they had worked for.

Part of the problem with what you are endorsing here is perception only. My former boss did not need anything from the government as a muli-millionaire. Even when his company went under it was set up so first payout went back to him before manufacturers. He could have floated the company for years truth be told but his kids were tired of the struggle and I can't say I blame them as the clothing industry as we knew it is gone. They saw that he only saw his name on a family business going down. I get that too. But is perception and how to set it up etc.

 

[Goober]

Just a feeble attempt at humour in this boring thread! -

KM was here

Could that be Cannuck on that A......hmmm...Animal behind ya?

KM was here

Have you ever been in need of assistance? Have you ever applied for assistance? Have you ever tried to live on the pittance they give you (if they give it to you)? Have you ever had a bureaucrat trying to control your life because they think they have the right to? When I was hit by a logging truck, I had to go on assistance for a while. They were checking up on how much toilet paper I was using. On assistance, you are a ward of the state and you have no life of your own. And they are always up your butt accusing you of fraud if you spend one cent on something they don't approve of. What you are proposing is to take away all freedom from the elderly.

KM was here

Basically, I agree with you Sal, that is for a person to present an opinion and debate it, but this has gotten a little beyond that, now it's just become a repetition about selfishness and greed. We've all heard that about 10 times now, not to mention the denigration of a certain demographic. There is nothing wrong with suggesting a shift in Gov't spending, but his proposal does not guarantee an improvement in the shift! -

KM was here

JLM the best way to stop an argument with someone is to quit responding to his arguments with more fodder for him to argue about, you can ridicule him, change the subject or even stay quiet, eventually he will look elsewhere;-)
The reason Quixote fought the windmills is because the damn blades wouldn't quit moving. :lol:

KM was here

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.

KM was here

Who asked you?



That is one of the problems, you want to change it using a dollar figure as a criteria! If you are going to do that you would be using a different figure for virtually every Canadian. Is the cost of living exactly the same in Charlottetown, Vancouver, High Prairie and Iqaluit? Transportation costs alone differ in those four places. There is simply no fair way to change it short of spending $billions on bureaucracy. Like I said before the fairest way is to give it to everyone and have G.I.S. provision for the hard cases. Doing it your way would end up with neighbours murdering each other. Forget the scheme, it won't work. We already have too much Gov't. in our faces.



You might be right but when you are attacking a demographic I'm part of then you are attacking me. -

KM was here

 

[JLM]

What stats are you using to define poverty line?
Why a family of 4?
The claw back if I recall correctly begins at 65 K.

One thing I've found in life Goober, you can't fight ignorance with intelligence! -

 

[WindWalker]

I keep seeing it's not fair, it's not fair, it's not fair. Maybe so.

I haven't found many things in life to be fair. Least of all would be re-distribution of wealth which is essentially what you are proposing. It doesn't work.

 

[taxslave]

Lets break it down for a year.
12 000$ for house
2 200$ for heat and electricity.
9 000$ for grocery
5 000$ for car and repairs
3 000$ for gas for the car
1 500$ for insurance
2 000$ for birthdays
2 000$ for holiday visits and presents
5 000$ for your second car
3 000$ for phone Internet cable

Where at 45 000$ and we haven't even talked of health care
Like dentice, glasses, chiropractor.
Then we need to add putting away money for retirement.
You need to replace at least one appliance or bed every year.
New pillows, etc....

Add a good 5 000$ for that and that's if your lucky.
Would you call a middle class's family " middle class" if they have no pets? Not me.
2 000$ more for the pet.

If you own your home, you need yard stuff & repaires on your home.
That could add up really fast on you.
5 000$

What are we at to live middle class now?
57 000$

Ok we need to save for the kids school
2 000$

Then you have clothing
2 000$

Every middle class family should have at least 1 000$ a month of disposable/or for savings.
12 000$

Anything under 75 000$ a year.
A family is not living a full middle class life style.

Then they had best be earning $75000+. Just spending that much because you think thats what it costs is irresponsible. That is how our governments got into such a mess because they decided how much they wanted to spend before they figured out how much they could bring in.

 

[tibear]

One thing I've found in life Goober, you can't fight ignorance with intelligence! -

Or selfishment with common sense.

I keep seeing it's not fair, it's not fair, it's not fair. Maybe so.

I haven't found many things in life to be fair. Least of all would be re-distribution of wealth which is essentially what you are proposing. It doesn't work.

You're absolutely right that there are things that aren't fair in life, like people with illness and disablities through no fault of their own.

But man-made unfairness should be untolerable and corrected as soon as possible.