Three years for an immigrant to qualify for O.A.S. at our expense!!!!!
Can Canadians afford Ruby Dhalla's OAS plan? - Gargoyle: the Blog
Can Canadians afford Ruby Dhalla's OAS plan? - Gargoyle: the Blog
Can Canadians afford Ruby Dhalla's private members bill?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
Seems a bit extreme to grant OAS so early for members of society who never paid into the system. Ten years is an arbitrary number, but it seems about right.
I don't think ten years is enough either. We as Canadians worked together to build the
fund only to have non citizens or immigrants come and use the government stick like
a Mexican Pinata, and scatter the funds from the cookie jar to suit themselves.
Those funds are not the governments they are yours and mine administered by the
government of the day, and be damned if I want to take less to share it with anyone.
That is not mean spirited its practical. Let me ask you, If this were your private pension,
would you share a portion of that too, with someone who hadn't paid their share into it?
Not bloody likely, and this is the same thing. If they come here and pay for a required
number of years, say ten, then they should be entitled to a portion, but not the full amount
the same as someone who paid in their whole life.
fund only to have non citizens or immigrants come and use the government stick like
a Mexican Pinata, and scatter the funds from the cookie jar to suit themselves.
Those funds are not the governments they are yours and mine administered by the
government of the day, and be damned if I want to take less to share it with anyone.
That is not mean spirited its practical. Let me ask you, If this were your private pension,
would you share a portion of that too, with someone who hadn't paid their share into it?
Not bloody likely, and this is the same thing. If they come here and pay for a required
number of years, say ten, then they should be entitled to a portion, but not the full amount
the same as someone who paid in their whole life.
Simple solution: Gradually scrap the OAS and replace it with some kind of compulsory retirement savings plan, say 10% of one's income or something of the sort which they could cash whenever they are in need of money or have reached the age of seventy, whichever comes first. Any new immigrant, like any other Canadian, would be forced to participate in this program from the first day he starts working. Bingo. Is it really that hard?
Interestingly enough, the immigration issue is one of the factors that had pushed me away from socialism. Decades ago, I used to flirt with the idea of international socialism, but soon realized, from a pragmatic perspective, that a socialist state also promotes, even if unintentionally, some anti-immigrant sentiments as people object to having paid into the system for so many years and then having immigrants benefit from the system. It thus seemed to force me to make a choice between socialism and internationalism. In short, if we want to break down barriers, then we need to eliminate socialism, at least in the sense that we usually understand it.
If we consider that socialists want to help the less fortunate members of society but also break down barriers between nations (workers of the world unite and all that jazz), then any system designed to achieve socialist ends must be designed to be internationally portable. One good thing with a compulsory personal savings plan is that it helps those who might not otherwise save (thus achieving the socialist aim of looking out for their welfare, in this case by forcing them to save their money), while also ensuring the internationalist aim of allowing that money to follow them wherever in the world they may be. For example, a foreign worker working in Canada would also have to pay into a personal savings plan but then when he needs money or reaches the age of seventy or whatever, then he could cash that money in wherever in the world he may be. In the end, it starts looking more like a social corporatist system than a socialist one.
Interestingly enough, the immigration issue is one of the factors that had pushed me away from socialism. Decades ago, I used to flirt with the idea of international socialism, but soon realized, from a pragmatic perspective, that a socialist state also promotes, even if unintentionally, some anti-immigrant sentiments as people object to having paid into the system for so many years and then having immigrants benefit from the system. It thus seemed to force me to make a choice between socialism and internationalism. In short, if we want to break down barriers, then we need to eliminate socialism, at least in the sense that we usually understand it.
If we consider that socialists want to help the less fortunate members of society but also break down barriers between nations (workers of the world unite and all that jazz), then any system designed to achieve socialist ends must be designed to be internationally portable. One good thing with a compulsory personal savings plan is that it helps those who might not otherwise save (thus achieving the socialist aim of looking out for their welfare, in this case by forcing them to save their money), while also ensuring the internationalist aim of allowing that money to follow them wherever in the world they may be. For example, a foreign worker working in Canada would also have to pay into a personal savings plan but then when he needs money or reaches the age of seventy or whatever, then he could cash that money in wherever in the world he may be. In the end, it starts looking more like a social corporatist system than a socialist one.
The retirement age is at present 65 raising it to 70 would cause one hell of a row.
The other part of this is once again there is a matter of paying the amount and the
interest is what pays for the overall plan. If you die, your wife or husband should
get 75% of the pension in addition to their own as support that they would receive.
People who come here from elsewhere and pay into the system when they are
younger, that is one thing, but to have people come here under family reunification
and immigration and you decide to carve off the interest share i would be entitled
to under the terms of the program is complete nonsense. In addition I don't see why
we are sharing a plan with some senior who came here and didn't pay into the plan
during their lifetime.
It is not selfish or mean or anything else. It is a fact these people are not entitled to
money or access to a program they didn't pay enough into. If there is that much
money left over then pay the present, pensioners more money. Like that is going to
happen. People coming here in old age are not the problem of our country simple.
The other part of this is once again there is a matter of paying the amount and the
interest is what pays for the overall plan. If you die, your wife or husband should
get 75% of the pension in addition to their own as support that they would receive.
People who come here from elsewhere and pay into the system when they are
younger, that is one thing, but to have people come here under family reunification
and immigration and you decide to carve off the interest share i would be entitled
to under the terms of the program is complete nonsense. In addition I don't see why
we are sharing a plan with some senior who came here and didn't pay into the plan
during their lifetime.
It is not selfish or mean or anything else. It is a fact these people are not entitled to
money or access to a program they didn't pay enough into. If there is that much
money left over then pay the present, pensioners more money. Like that is going to
happen. People coming here in old age are not the problem of our country simple.
OK, 65 it is. What I'm saying though is if we replaced it with a personal compulsory savings plan of say 10% of one's personal income, then since it's his own money that he'd earned, it wouldn't matter. So if you move to Canada at a young age, you'd have paid into the plan all your life, or at least all the time you spent in Canada, and depending on how much you put into it, that's how much you'd then have access to in old age.
If you start working here middle-aged, same concept. In old age? Same concept. You'd have access to whatever you personally put into it. That being said, it would be the responsibility of government to manage the economy well to ensure all find work of course, but otherwise you'd be paying your own money into your own fund. Essentially it would be the same concept as RRSP and RESP except that it would be compulsory, not optional. On the other hand, any collective fund would be eliminated altogether. As for the poorest, well, provide them with room and board, and no more, and they must help to maintain it too.
So a landed immigrant (whom has never paid into the oas) can qualify to recieve that? And I (whom has been paying into it my whole working life) is paying for his pension? So what if left for me if this bill passes?
Agian, gradually scrap OAS and replace it with a compulsory personal savings plan.
I have no problem with someone coming here at a young age and working all their life and
contributing. Not even an issue, their contribution plus interest would qualify them. As a
middle age person it could work out the same as many come here with a skill and are paid
well, meaning their contribution and relative interest might be much the same. Young and
middle aged people are not really the problem. It is seniors, they have not made their
contribution to this country in terms of financial support and our present seniors should not
pay twice. Here is where I don't agree. It is not how much you put into the pension pot,it is
the accumulated interest that made that pot grow, that is a big factor. Those who paid into
the pot the longest should in fact be entitled to a specific amount. If others who did not in
fact contribute, are going to be allowed to collect, it means either all participants get less
money or money has to be borrowed to cover the plan. Either way some are going to
benefit without paying their share. The other problem for the elderly is pension savings
and RRSPs must be converted to RIFs by age 79. It should be pointed out to people when
they come here if they are over a certain age they will not qualify for certain funding.
The only exception to this would be those who were full immigrant natural citizens that
reached 65 years should receive the old age pension, but not the cpp suplimental portion.
There could be a rider saying if the person was fifty or older when they came they would not
be eligable, under fifty there is still time to contribute a significant amount.
God I hope this is clear.
contributing. Not even an issue, their contribution plus interest would qualify them. As a
middle age person it could work out the same as many come here with a skill and are paid
well, meaning their contribution and relative interest might be much the same. Young and
middle aged people are not really the problem. It is seniors, they have not made their
contribution to this country in terms of financial support and our present seniors should not
pay twice. Here is where I don't agree. It is not how much you put into the pension pot,it is
the accumulated interest that made that pot grow, that is a big factor. Those who paid into
the pot the longest should in fact be entitled to a specific amount. If others who did not in
fact contribute, are going to be allowed to collect, it means either all participants get less
money or money has to be borrowed to cover the plan. Either way some are going to
benefit without paying their share. The other problem for the elderly is pension savings
and RRSPs must be converted to RIFs by age 79. It should be pointed out to people when
they come here if they are over a certain age they will not qualify for certain funding.
The only exception to this would be those who were full immigrant natural citizens that
reached 65 years should receive the old age pension, but not the cpp suplimental portion.
There could be a rider saying if the person was fifty or older when they came they would not
be eligable, under fifty there is still time to contribute a significant amount.
God I hope this is clear.
OAS is for Canadian citizens. It takes three years to obtain a citizenship in this country so as long as they are Canadian citizens then they should get it.
For immigrants who are not citizens there is welfare or family support or going back to their country of origin.
For immigrants that lived in this country for more than three years and don’t want to get their citizenship they do not deserve all the rights and privileges that Canadian citizens enjoy and OAS is one of them.
I know that some immigrants do not want a Canadian citizenship because their country of origin does not allow duel citizenship like America where their laws state that you can’t have allegiance for two countries just one.
If Canada were to get rid of dual citizenship status then the majority of American draft dodgers would go back to their country and face the consequences.
The immigrants qualify for pensions from their own country of origin so they don’t need the OAS.
For immigrants who are not citizens there is welfare or family support or going back to their country of origin.
For immigrants that lived in this country for more than three years and don’t want to get their citizenship they do not deserve all the rights and privileges that Canadian citizens enjoy and OAS is one of them.
I know that some immigrants do not want a Canadian citizenship because their country of origin does not allow duel citizenship like America where their laws state that you can’t have allegiance for two countries just one.
If Canada were to get rid of dual citizenship status then the majority of American draft dodgers would go back to their country and face the consequences.
The immigrants qualify for pensions from their own country of origin so they don’t need the OAS.
That sounds like a very pragmatic solution, however, does that stop the opportunity to claim through welfare or stem the tide of medical-refugees into the system?
The whole point of her bill is to get the ethnic vote since no one else will vote for her. I don't see why we would let anyone that is not self sufficient become a citizen when they are only three years from retirement age any way. We have more than enough old Canadians to look after without becoming the rest home to the world.
There should also be a minimum residency requirement for free medical as well.
There should also be a minimum residency requirement for free medical as well.
I would imagine that you might find a lot of support that new immigrants undergo a basic health screening prior to being granted citizenship.
It wasn't that long ago that there was a kerfuffle about an American man that was diagnosed with full blown aids that attempted to enter Canada as a medical refugee... He claimed that he couldn't be refused for humanitarian reasons and had the intent of using the Canadian medical system to address his condition.
You sure could be right... In part, I mentioned that issue based on the most recent boat-load of Tamil's that arrived including a pregnant woman that will likely give birth in Canada.
I know that when you adopt overseas, a medical has to be done before you can get the paperwork from the Canadian Embassy.
That's right- 99% of the voters recognize the stupidity of the woman, ensuring she will never be reelected. :smile:
Last edited:
Now this I can agree with. If you are a Canadian citizen, you ought to have access to all services all other citizens have access to as a matter of principle, from day one. Looking at it that way, this leaves us with some options:
1. Require people to come to Canada as foreign workers for a number of years, having to pay into the OAS, before they could even become citizens, but once citizens, they ave access to everything we have, or
2. Eliminate programs that we don't want immigrants to have access to so that essentially no Canadian would have access to them, an replace them with a program that is more palatable to the idea that a person could become an immigrant in a short time (which also helps to avoid the problem of marriages of convenience which seems to plague Canada now, with many victims), such as the idea of a personal savings plan.
That should be a verse in a future NIMBY anthem.