Governments spend too much on Seniors

[Cannuck]

Well, when looking at old age pensions and senior care programs, you have to consider that seniors are not a special interest group. They are not a minority group.....

But they are a voting block. Benefits to seniors are far too lavish considering they are one of the (if not the) wealthiest segments of society. The reason governments don't cut is because there are far too many votes to lose.

 

[gerryh]

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.

Good for them, that's what my brother, sisters, and I told our parents to do. It is THEIR money, THEY worked for it, THEY should enjoy it.

But they are a voting block. Benefits to seniors are far too lavish considering they are one of the (if not the) wealthiest segments of society. The reason governments don't cut is because there are far too many votes to lose.

and that voting block is just going to get bigger as more baby boomers retire, so, suck it up buttercup.

 

[karrie]

But they are a voting block. Benefits to seniors are far too lavish considering they are one of the (if not the most) wealthiest segments of society. The reason governments don't cut is because there are far too many votes to lose.

That kind of underscores my point that you can't compare it to any other social program, as it does effect too large of a portion of the population, and it's a unifying factor across all the votes, because everyone gets old. It makes it much different from the rest of the social programs.

 

[Cannuck]

and that voting block is just going to get bigger as more baby boomers retire, so, suck it up buttercup.

Yes it is. It's unfortunate that people place their own greed ahead of the good of all. What's even more unfortunate is that many folks (like you) seem to find no problem with greed.

That kind of underscores my point that you can't compare it to any other social program, as it does effect too large of a portion of the population, and it's a unifying factor across all the votes, because everyone gets old. It makes it much different from the rest of the social programs.

Probably the main thing that differentiates much of the seniors benefits with other social programs is that need has little to do with it. I often wonder what would happen if every parent a baby bonus regardless of income. I suspect there would be alot of complaining.

 

[Trex]

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.

What are you talking about?
If you reside in Canada it is the law to report all income and pay taxes
OAS is not a social program you are completely confused.
It is defined as a benefit available to most Canadians at retirement.
If you have paid no taxes in Canada and have no income you will be eligible for Social Assistance and OAS and GIS at 65.
You will be required to file taxes with the government.

The OAS BENEFIT is simply a scheme that returns some accrued money back the the Citizens of Canada at 65.
It is clawed back between $75 and $100,000 a year simply because the rich are deemd not to need it.
If you are very low income Social Assistance and GIS as well as other programs may be available.
OAS is not a Social Assistence program and has never been considered one.

You personally may feel that OAS should clawed back at a lower threshold but that's your opinion.

Others may feel that there should be no income taxes at all and the government should hand out free weed.

 

[karrie]

Probably the main thing that differentiates much of the seniors benefits with other social programs is that need has little to do with it. I often wonder what would happen if every parent a baby bonus regardless of income. I suspect there would be alot of complaining.

You mean like the Universal Child Care Bonus?

 

[Angstrom]

You mean like the Universal Child Care Bonus?

Child tax benefits is the one based on income and last till they are 18 years old.

Universal child care benefit is 100$ a month per. Until they turn 6

 

[Cannuck]

You mean like the Universal Child Care Bonus?

Child tax credit. I'm guessing there would be lots of complaints if everybody got it the same amount regardless of income.

 

[Angstrom]

Child tax credit. I'm guessing there would be lots of complaints if everybody got it the same amount regardless of income.

The universal child care benefits is a everyone gets it no matter your income level.
But it's 100 per/child a month... Nothing close to CPP or that other one.

And it's only till the child turns 6

 

[Cannuck]

The universal child care benefits is a everyone gets it no matter your income level.

...and they shouldn't.

 

[gerryh]

Child tax credit. I'm guessing there would be lots of complaints if everybody got it the same amount regardless of income.

the original "Baby Bonus" was paid monthly to everyone regardless of income till the child reached age 16. Quebec has had a bonus system whereas new parents receive 8k upon birth of a new child regardless of income.

 

[karrie]

Child tax credit. I'm guessing there would be lots of complaints if everybody got it the same amount regardless of income.

$100 per month, until they are six, regardless of income. Not the same thing as the child tax credit.

 

[Angstrom]

the original "Baby Bonus" was paid monthly to everyone regardless of income till the child reached age 16. Quebec has had a bonus system whereas new parents receive 8k upon birth of a new child regardless of income.

Well they sure cut &trim that program back from the original payout.8O

 

[karrie]

Well they sure cut &trim that program back from the original payout.8O

$7200 is still a sizeable bonus.

 

[Cannuck]

$100 per month, until they are six, regardless of income. Not the same thing as the child tax credit.

It's a benefit that is paid regardless of need. It should be eliminated. The Child Tax Benefit is paid monthly based on income. I am against any benefit, regardless of whether it is a tax credit or monthly payment if it is not based on need.

 

[karrie]

It's a benefit that is paid regardless of need. It should be eliminated. The Child Tax Benefit is paid monthly based on income. I am against any benefit, regardless of whether it is a tax credit or monthly payment if it is not based on need.

Any incentive to get people breeding IS needed right now. But regardless, the assertion was that there would be outcry over the program you didn't even know existed for the last, what, 8 years I think?

 

[Cannuck]

Any incentive to get people breeding IS needed right now.

No it's not. Immigration can give us what we need.

 

[karrie]

No it's not. Immigration can give us what we need.

While I support the idea that we should support immigration, we need both imo. We need the 2.3 kids, and we need healthy immigration.

 

[tibear]

the original "Baby Bonus" was paid monthly to everyone regardless of income till the child reached age 16. Quebec has had a bonus system whereas new parents receive 8k upon birth of a new child regardless of income.

And that makes it right? Canada doesn't have the luxury of throwing money around for no reason. We should restrict the "free" money to people strictly based on financial need.

Well, when looking at old age pensions and senior care programs, you have to consider that seniors are not a special interest group. They are not a minority group. They are not a 'portion of the population'. Poor people get old. Cultural minorities get old. Rich get old. Men. Women. Gays. Artists. Sports heroes. Everyone. So, it's not showing favouritism to a minority group, it is planning for the one common outcome we all face if we're lucky enough to not stroke out ahead of time. I think that alone makes it a lot easier for every single voter to be willing to invest in social funding.

What the heck are we playing Monopoly? Make it around the board collect $200.....make it to 65 and collect OAS? Do we really want to live life like a boardgame? Does that make sense?

I am glad to see that you see OAS as a social program because it really can't be put into any other category.

 

[gerryh]

And that makes it right? Canada doesn't have the luxury of throwing money around for no reason. We should restrict the "free" money to people strictly based on financial need.

.

Yup, Canada needs more population. They have for quite some time now. If the bonus's help us have more kids, then have at er.