I haven't called anyone the names that you've indicating but regardless of what someone does to me, I should be able to control my emotions and deal with them in a respectful manner. I can't control others, but I should be able to control myself.
Governments spend too much on Seniors
- Thread starter tibear
- Start date
I haven't called anyone the names that you've indicating but regardless of what someone does to me, I should be able to control my emotions and deal with them in a respectful manner. I can't control others, but I should be able to control myself.
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. -
You sound way to much like cdnbear. I'm calling it!
Your cdnbear on a different account.
You might be right but when you are attacking a demographic I'm part of then you are attacking me. -
He is part of your demographic.
I think your just susceptible.
Maybe you should relax a little old man.
No one is actually taking your money.
Crazy leprechaun.
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. -
But JLM I'm not changing the way OAS works, it already uses a dollar figure as a criteria. There is a clawback already put into place so NOTHING would have to change. Would more people try to hide income? Perhaps. As I said earlier, just because people are breaking the law doesn't mean that you have to change the law. (spousal and child abuse).
As for attacking, as I said before, you are the one who is taking it personally, I'm simply proposing changes that myself and many others think make sense. Could you please comment on my proposal that the clawback be based on the poverty line for a family of four. Doesn't that make sense?
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.
That's what I've been trying to figure out- if you are going to change a system, it has to be for the better. He's trying to tie the O.A.S. to poverty. I know they brought it in to help alleviate poverty among seniors and from what I remember they gave up trying to figure out who deserved it, they gave it to everybody, so that no one felt guilty about accepting it and to my thinking that is a good critieria, just think of it as a bonus from money you've already paid out for attaining the age of 65. Let's say for sake of argument you could shave the pay out down a little, where would be a better place to spend it?
It's not based upon anything tangible. Just an number pulled out of the air.
The reason I chose the poverty line for a family of four is because that is the number quoted most by the media and poverty groups when discussing poverty.
Right now I believe the poverty line for a family of four is around $50K. Shouldn't a reasonable number to help seniors in their retirement years be based on a similar criteria as social assistance? Social assistance takes into account all of the same issues that affect seniors like physical disability, sickness, high medical costs, etc.
OAS is NOT a universal plan because many seniors do not receive any OAS but a means benefit because of the clawback, I'm simply proposing to make the clawback reasonable.
JLM, I would propose using the money to help low income Canadians and job training to help unemployed Canadians improve their lives. Doesn't it make sense to help a family of four that makes $25K a year or less and currently gets very little governmental help?
DaSleeper, I thought I tried to bring respect back to this discussion but comments like this doesn't help the cause. If you wish to discuss actual facts, please share your thoughts, disrepectful comments may be kept at the keyboard.
Arguements in opposition to my proposal are of course expected and welcome but shouldn't there be some logic or reasoning behind the arguements.
Goober, I've quoted the clawback range many times already in this debate and will be accused by others of repeating myself because of this question, but the range is from approx $71K to $111K.
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.
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.
I've been very fortunate and never required assistance, however, I have a number of family members and friends that did and agree with you that the government doesn't give them enough to survive.
The proposal I'm putting forward is to "re-allocate" some of the $40 Billion dollars from some of the seniors that don't need the money to all Canadians that do need it to survive. The people that would be losing the OAS are people that didn't "need" the money but used it for "extras". (like trips, sports, automobiles, etc)
As I've said many times, which no one here seems willing to address directly is: Do you believe that it is reasonable for the government to give $6,000-$7,000 annually to seniors that make $71,000 annually when there are so many Canadians that could desperately use the additional money. Especially when the poverty line for a family of four is set around $50K.
I saw the figure used in a media report a while back, I would have to search the net to find.
However, if you want to use the value of $22K as the poverty level for a family of four it is even worse. The government gives $6-$7K a year to someone who makes more than 3 times what a family of four is expected to live on? That really doesn't make sense does it?
I believe you said your pension was just under $32K annually which is $10K more than $22K that you're suggesting is reasonable for a family of four.
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.
http://www.today.com/id/3079221/ns/...mothers-fathers-are-going-broke/#.UYXRRcu9KSM
‘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.
Last edited:
Wow, good information Gerry.
However, does this one make more sense: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75f0002m/2012002/tbl/tbl02-eng.htm
It shows the low-income level for families of different sizes and it shows that the OAS clawback minimum amount is in fact higher by about $10K annually than what the maximum poverty line is for a family of 7. the low income amount for a family of 7 ranges from $42- $61K annually.
Do you think it reasonable that the government give $6-$7K annually to a senior who makes $10-$30K more annually than the same government believes a family of 7 should survive on?
Last edited:
know what, I really don't give a rats a$$ about what some whiny little "me me" di ck thinks about what we, as a society, have decided our seniors deserve. The young and the old are here to be protected and cared for by the rest. The young because they can't take care of themselves, and the old because they took care of the young when needed and now need that "favour" returned. The OAS is something that everyone will get eventually. It's not like it's something for a specific ethnic group only. It is for everyone in their senior years. You want to begrudge our Seniors? Then you aren't worth the shyte on the bottom of my shoes. ALL seniors deserve everything we can do for them. They deserve it. Whether they were born, worked, raised families, etc, here or somewhere else. They have worked hard to bring mankind to where it is and allow you the freedom to whine and bitch.
That's my philosopy, but you might keep your eyes peeled for a "red"-
unlike some posters on here that feel getting a red means you need to start a thread about it and whine to the world about that too.....I don't give a rats a$$ about getting reds. Just means some one doesn't agree with me. Oh well, isn't the first time and won't be the last.