Lolz
That response like your "red negs" is pretty much conclusive proof you have nothing intelligent to say about the matter, not that I would expect you to have anything intelligent to say about ANY matter! -
Lolz
I certainly hope you are preparing for your retirement. With the longer lifespan those social programs have given Canadians, you could be retired for 40 years. Whatever saving you put buy, it will not cover you until the end, particularly with all the young people demanding more money and lower hours per week....... and don't dare touch their retirement fund, wanting all post high school education paid for, and in some places, they want to be paid to go to school so where does that leave you in your retirement. LOL.
Well, you've named four out of hundreds, three of which are seldom if ever here! -. Anyone (in my opinion) who denigrates an entire demographic is either stupid, arrogant or obnoxious (in my opinion) and most likely all three. - As for your kids tell them to quit their fricken' snivelling and grab some moxie and take advantage of a world that our generation worked hard to create for them. A little bit of gratitude can go a long way.
If somebody doesn't shoot him! - - - -
That response like your "red negs" is pretty much conclusive proof you have nothing intelligent to say about the matter, not that I would expect you to have anything intelligent to say about ANY matter! -
The only one that's even tried (and failed miserably) is JLM but he doesn't really fit in with the majority of seniors. He admits to owing 100k on a house worth 200k so he's either had a lot of bad luck or made some piss poor choices.
Lolz
Lolz
Seniors and the generation spending gap
Why are we doing so much to try to help seniors when they’re already the wealthiest generation in history?
Tamsin McMahon
September 6, 2014
At age 89, Larry South would have been forgiven if he had chosen to retire on a sunny beach in Florida. Instead, the former MPP from Kingston, Ont., recently embarked on a political battle to overhaul the municipal property tax system. South had been growing increasingly concerned that elderly homeowners on fixed incomes were struggling to cope with rising property taxes because of the soaring value of their homes, while at the same time he fretted that young workers, with their stagnant wages, were being shut out of the housing market. And so South proposed replacing property taxes with a tax equal to 4.5 per cent of a homeowner’s yearly household income. Doing so would make it easier for young workers to afford the cost of owning a home, while struggling seniors, he believed, would be the biggest beneficiaries.
More: Seniors and the generation spending gap - Macleans.ca
Most are. Denying it doesn't change a thing. I understand you aren't. You are below average. Accept it.
Lolz
The Link in the OP says I'm not. Statscan says I'm not. While I can appreciate that you believe I'm wrong, the evidence is on my side.
lolz
S.L.M. - I think you have a valid subject for discussion if it can be discussed in a sane and logical manner without disparaging remarks from the peanut gallery.
1. Not all seniors are prosperous, some are but most aren't. The ones who are get most of their benefits clawed back on their income tax.
2. You are making a comparison between what seniors today have and young people of today have. The correct comparison would be between what young people have today and what we had when we were their age.
3. Before tarring all wealthy seniors with the same brush and not so wealthy seniors as far as that goes, it should be remembered that many seniors make generous donations of both time and money to charities.
4. Some wealthy and not so wealthy seniors create employment in the community hiring house cleaners, chauffers, taxis, carpenters, window cleaners etc. etc. etc.
5. To attack an entire demographic carte blanche as one illustrious poster is inclined to do just annoys people and does nothing to resolve the issue.
I'm quite willing to listen to any sensible and reasonable feedback but I won't accept CRAP from anyone.
Good topic, S.L.M.
You're wrong. Why would you persist in advertising your ignorance? Most elderly people spent their lives working at average paying jobs while raising a family, paying a mortgage and some paying for their kids to attend college. How could they possibly be wealthy? Besides that you're rude, I was speaking to S.L.M. I'm sure everyone has heard more than enough from you and don't particularly like seeing a thread hi jacked. So maybe if you shut up for a while, other posters maybe able to jam in some sensible comments.
Government employee. No sense of reality and a solid gold pension plan. Things changed dramatically for government unions, especially at the municipal level between the time you retired and now.
A lotofolser people are asset rich and cash poor. The modest house they spent a considerable part of their working lives paying for may nowbe worth mega bucks, which they must pay taxes on but to realize any profit they would haveto uproot and moveto a depressed area which in turn has the unfortunate consiquence of upping property valuesfor the locals there.
What's your definition of a "solid gold pension" and how does it relate to the topic at hand?
You don't know how realty trends affect property values?Perhaps some of you people would be a little bit more credible if you actually providing something other than your opinions to back up your claims.
Defined benifit plan wholey or partly paid for by taxpayers. Especially when they qualify at age 60. Those are the rich retirees which in case you have forgotten is the topic at hand.
What struck me the most about the article was the opening piece relating to the notion of reworking the property tax assessment in an effort to not only assist young people in being able to enter the housing market but also to benefit those seniors who were struggling despite the current credits afforded to them. The backlash to that proposal struck me as backlash from those only interested in maintaining the status quo, and that, in a nutshell, is what makes the topic worthy of discussion. In my opinion.
Personally I have no interest in taking anything away from anyone, especially if they've worked for it. More power to them I say. And I'm not willing to leave anyone in a more precarious situation than they were previously in. But there is some merit in reopening the debate of allowing age alone to determine what many of these societal benefits are. One has to realize of course that most of these programs and benefits were designed at a time when it was pretty conclusive that retired individuals were generally in one of the worst financial positions of any group within society. If that's no longer the case, and in many cases there are good arguments that it's not, then revisiting the criteria for programs and benefits is not a bad idea. Because it's not about taking things away from seniors, it's about leveling the playing field based on a new reality.
Wow!!! You must really be struggling if you consider that "gold plated".
Btw, I wonder how people would feel about giving welfare payments to a single mother living in a paid for house worth 2 million?
Wow!!! You must really be struggling if you consider that "gold plated".
Btw, I wonder how people would feel about giving welfare payments to a single mother living in a paid for house worth 2 million?
Perhaps some of you people would be a little bit more credible if you actually providing something other than your opinions to back up your claims.
Government employee. No sense of reality and a solid gold pension plan. Things changed dramatically for government unions, especially at the municipal level between the time you retired and now.
You're the idiot who started out making the claims. YOU back them up! Names, addresses and the "bottom line" on the income tax forms will do!