Governments spend too much on Seniors
- Thread starter tibear
- Start date
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
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
Last edited:
Pretty dim view of your parents, and seniors in general. How much exactly do they owe you?
God forbid anyone should have some fun.
this post is pretty much a work of art...almost poetic, it is just that good... !!!! Two thumbs up!!!!!!
um, didn't yo just contradict yourself by saying everyone is entitled and then saying someone is less entitled and gets nothing...8O
actually very likely... they may be spending the money they have worked hard to earn but they also have a lot of money, and cottages, and other worldly goods over a trillion dollars will be inherited...that's a lot of money.
Inheritance wave coming to save Canadian baby boomers - Need to know - Macleans.ca
Hey kids. Just lace up your work boots every morning like we did and you will be fine. Oh, and make sure you wear them to an actual job, not just the unemployment or welfare offices.
There are certainly a few considerations in this discussion.
The CPP is paid out according to what is paid in so isn't an issue for me other than there should be a minimum amount payable to those with no other income streams.
The OAS isn't considered a pension, it is more along the lines of a welfare benefit for being old and really needs to be ONLY for those whose income falls below the poverty line.
A couple of examples of where it is 'mis-spent' are people I know well. Paul has a $3500/mo company pension and gets health benefits, he also collects max CPP and has a monthly residual from his investment portfolio but still gets OAS while his wife collects about 1/2 of CPP and she also collects OAS....no wonder they have a 41' Prevost coach with all the bells & whistles and spend more time jet-setting the globe than they do in their paid for home.
Kate collects almost max CPP and also gets OAS while she is still working in the mental health field in a govt union making about $60k and will get a nice pension (including benefits) from them when she finally decides to quit.
Why should either of these examples collect what amounts to welfare?
The CPP is paid out according to what is paid in so isn't an issue for me other than there should be a minimum amount payable to those with no other income streams.
The OAS isn't considered a pension, it is more along the lines of a welfare benefit for being old and really needs to be ONLY for those whose income falls below the poverty line.
A couple of examples of where it is 'mis-spent' are people I know well. Paul has a $3500/mo company pension and gets health benefits, he also collects max CPP and has a monthly residual from his investment portfolio but still gets OAS while his wife collects about 1/2 of CPP and she also collects OAS....no wonder they have a 41' Prevost coach with all the bells & whistles and spend more time jet-setting the globe than they do in their paid for home.
Kate collects almost max CPP and also gets OAS while she is still working in the mental health field in a govt union making about $60k and will get a nice pension (including benefits) from them when she finally decides to quit.
Why should either of these examples collect what amounts to welfare?
I actually encourage my parents to spend it all. I am quite well off myself as are my sisters, we need no help from our parents, they gave us all the help we needed when we were young by teaching us good work ethics, the value of education, and how to invest and save money. I will likely be better off in retirement than they are without needing CPP or OAS.
What I was trying to get at was the change in thinking of today's seniors from the past where they would build wealth to pass on to their children to now where they build wealth to blow on their retirement years. I am sure this is affected by the fact seniors today have far more years of retirement to enjoy and a physically capable of doing much more in those years than their predecessors.
First of all the seniors built the progressive society we have today. Some went to some
of the conflicts to serve and preserve what you have today. The others stayed home
and worked in jobs that required people to fill. Just like many of you do now and like the
older folks before. You know the ones who got us through the great depression and
died on the battlefields etc. You've heard it all before, but you don't count your blessing
anymore you only discuss how much they are worth.
Why did we have rich and poor as it were getting pension benefits? Because everyone
paid their share at that time. And the people understood you can't trust future governments
If you can exclude some soon you will exclude all. Governments of the past were right,
Harper is trying to prove them right as he chips away little by little.
In addition here is something to think about UIC, Pension and other programs were paid for
by everyone contributing to the common good. UI and Medicare are actually insurance
programs. INSURANCE programs. Now lets look at that in the general population.
You buy life insurance for example and you pay from the time you are nineteen until sixty five
At some point A you retire and its whole life and they say "Well we have decided that you are
going to get to much money cause you lived so we will cut the amount by fifty percent. Would
ya be a little ticked? Or you died and they decided the one million was too much even if you
earned it by investing in the country (discuss that in a moment) would you be ticked if they decided
you family should get 300 thousand instead?
Finally remember that money did just sit there, the government was in charge of investing it in the
future of the country. They took it off my check like a giant credit Union and invested it in other things
as they were going to pay me later/ Those who want to whine can whine its time to pay up and
I think they understand the old folks grumpy like me VOTE and will vote accordingly.
Besides older folks need the money as the younger ones keep coming home in our society not mine
but I know a lot of people who see them come and go two or three times before they stand on their
own two feet.
(end of rant the tongue in my cheek is soar) .
of the conflicts to serve and preserve what you have today. The others stayed home
and worked in jobs that required people to fill. Just like many of you do now and like the
older folks before. You know the ones who got us through the great depression and
died on the battlefields etc. You've heard it all before, but you don't count your blessing
anymore you only discuss how much they are worth.
Why did we have rich and poor as it were getting pension benefits? Because everyone
paid their share at that time. And the people understood you can't trust future governments
If you can exclude some soon you will exclude all. Governments of the past were right,
Harper is trying to prove them right as he chips away little by little.
In addition here is something to think about UIC, Pension and other programs were paid for
by everyone contributing to the common good. UI and Medicare are actually insurance
programs. INSURANCE programs. Now lets look at that in the general population.
You buy life insurance for example and you pay from the time you are nineteen until sixty five
At some point A you retire and its whole life and they say "Well we have decided that you are
going to get to much money cause you lived so we will cut the amount by fifty percent. Would
ya be a little ticked? Or you died and they decided the one million was too much even if you
earned it by investing in the country (discuss that in a moment) would you be ticked if they decided
you family should get 300 thousand instead?
Finally remember that money did just sit there, the government was in charge of investing it in the
future of the country. They took it off my check like a giant credit Union and invested it in other things
as they were going to pay me later/ Those who want to whine can whine its time to pay up and
I think they understand the old folks grumpy like me VOTE and will vote accordingly.
Besides older folks need the money as the younger ones keep coming home in our society not mine
but I know a lot of people who see them come and go two or three times before they stand on their
own two feet.
(end of rant the tongue in my cheek is soar) .
Some of you are taking the bumper stickers too seriously.
I don't know any parents, that's right, any parents that spend ALL their money to make sure that the kids don't get left with something. Even if the kids are layabouts that don't deserve a damn thing.
But, maybe it's just me.
I don't know any parents, that's right, any parents that spend ALL their money to make sure that the kids don't get left with something. Even if the kids are layabouts that don't deserve a damn thing.
But, maybe it's just me.
I don't think anyone is but if parents do want to spend it all, then that's not only their right but their privilege plus I would wonder what kind of kids they have. Frankly I've seen some wonderful wonderful families totally fall apart once the will has been read. Sometimes that is sadder to watch than mourning those who have died.
This is the old, I've paid taxes for 40 years and deserve it, so many things wrong with that arguement:
- there is NO requirement to pay ANY taxes at all to collect OAS. CPP is another matter, people have paid into CPP and have a right to collect it. OAS is something completely different because there is no requirement other than being 65 or 66 or eventually 67 to collect and live in Canada for a period of time. Nothing else.
- Who cares how much taxes you've paid. From a pure "fair" position, why should age have any bearing on social programs? Shouldn't they be strictly income based? Think how much more poor canadians, SENIORS included, would be able to get if you took the $32 Billion from OAS and distribute it the people that REALLY need it.
OAS isn't a pension, it is a social program without any requirements except that you are 65 or old, lived in Canada for a period of time and are breathing.
Please try to come up with a "fair" reason as to why seniors should be treated differently than others when it comes to social programs.
I'm within 5 years of retiring and put the welfare of my children ahead of my "play" money. Most seniors in Canada, don't REALLY need the OAS they get, it goes for their hobbies like sports or travel.
That's exactly the point! Why shouldn't a persons income be the ONLY criteria to collect social benefits from the government? If someone needs money to help them live, they should receive help. No one should get money from the government for ANY other reason should they?
Isn't our society based on equality, so why should any one group be treated special?
I think your last paragraph speaks EXACTLY to what the article was talking about. Politicians are afraid of seniors because they vote and as a result, the politicians give to seniors at a dispropotional rate than other groups.
Remember that this discussion isn't about pensions, medical or social programs that canadians have either paid for in advance (CPP) or programs that they need to survive. It is about the benefits that come out of general revenue(No prior payment from recipients as you claim in your post) on a yearly basis that go directly to people that don't really need the money to survive.
And people cheat on taxes all the time.
And most small business owners tend to fiddle a bit with the expenses.
Every system will have cheaters, its inherent.
As to OAS.
If you pay the maximum amount ito the system all your life and have no other pension and savings' CPP and OAS pay out a max of $2000 a month.
The OAS clawback threshold starts at around $70,000 and reaches 100% at around $110,000.
Should those thresholds be lowered?
Well I certainly thinks so.
But look at it this way.
Public servants get gold plated indexed pensions.
70% paid for by the taxpayer.
Teachers can make a salary of over $100,000 a year in 7 years time.
If they retire at 53 and live to be 83 the pension alone pays out 2.1 million.
Cops and firefighters in Ontario now average higher salaries than engineers and lawyers.
So back to the guy who was in the private sector with no private pension and no savings.
$2000 a month seems fair to me.
And as to clawing back OAS sooner, well yes I completely agree.
But then I think public servants should have their taxpayer funded pensions cut in half.
And their pay cut.
And as to spending all the potential inheritance money before you die.
Extremely difficult to do.
And I would know because I pay for accountants to try and calculate that for me.
You have to plan for future potential illnesses or special needs in the family and equity is usually set aside.
And so generally speaking usually there is a fair chunk of estate left over for the kids to squabble over.
No its not the old I've paid my taxes for forty years. Our governments put forward the
programs the social programs UI and the CPP especially and they were actually a fee
for service so the government had money at the time. Now the time has come to pay
up.
The OAP was instituted because of the great depression and people having to work
all kinds of jobs to survive the seniors had nothing it evened the system. Now of course
many saved and the younger family will benefit. We saw in 2008 things can go to hell
in a hand basket pretty fast therefore its is a small price to pay rather than fight that
battle in society over again.
There is a seniors backlash coming for anyone stupid enough to attack them all they have
is a huge voting block. Do you really see governments attacking them knowing that?
As Durry said everyone gets old. When that happens many people advocating for less for
seniors change their tune pretty quick when Mr Reality comes knocking on the aging door.
programs the social programs UI and the CPP especially and they were actually a fee
for service so the government had money at the time. Now the time has come to pay
up.
The OAP was instituted because of the great depression and people having to work
all kinds of jobs to survive the seniors had nothing it evened the system. Now of course
many saved and the younger family will benefit. We saw in 2008 things can go to hell
in a hand basket pretty fast therefore its is a small price to pay rather than fight that
battle in society over again.
There is a seniors backlash coming for anyone stupid enough to attack them all they have
is a huge voting block. Do you really see governments attacking them knowing that?
As Durry said everyone gets old. When that happens many people advocating for less for
seniors change their tune pretty quick when Mr Reality comes knocking on the aging door.
Good answer. It clarifies what initially came across (IMO) as a little whiny.
This thread discussion, with mention of trips, fancy dinners, cottages and stuff, has dwelt more on seniors who are well off. It has mostly ignored the seniors who may have worked hard all their lives but don't have the benefit of a rich pension plan, and those who, because of "scraping by" all their lives in low-wage or low middle-class wage territory, had little opportunity to set by much in the way of RRSP's etc.
OAS for these people may be just that little extra that allows them to retire and not "starve". It could also be an incentive for them to get the hell out of the work force and free up jobs for younger people.
Maybe, to satisfy you, the OAS clawback should start at a lower threshold. That's a validly debatable issue.
No, no clawbacks, either can OAS or treat everyone the same.
A higher income senior should not be expected to support a low income senior. The high income senior is already paying more taxes, why do you want to penalize him even more ??