She did spend her life here in Canada (I'm assuming) contributing to
the ecomony with her purchases (for the household) over the coarse
of her lifespan. Would that factor in...as Dad was bringing home the
bacon?
Harper says `major' changes coming to pension system
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
She did spend her life here in Canada (I'm assuming) contributing to
the ecomony with her purchases (for the household) over the coarse
of her lifespan. Would that factor in...as Dad was bringing home the
bacon?
Why not just have policies in place to prevent anyone (regardless of whether they are born in this country or came here yesterday) from scamming the system or due you feel that people born in Canada are above that sort of thing?
She's just spending money her husband earned from his contribution to economic production. It doesn't really matter if he buys his groceries or someone else does.
OAS is welfare, some percentage of GDP collected in taxes and given out in welfare. So if you want to tie OAS to working then I guess the government could do away with OAS and contribute that percentage to CPP instead. But then what do you do for a woman like Cannuck's mother when the bread winner passes on before she does? The survivor benefits for CPP in this scenario would max out at 60% of Cannuck's father's contributed CPP funds. The household will never recover the funds that were paid into CPP. That's a bit sketchy isn't it?
Did she? How would the government know that. She could have spent her days laying on the couch drinking scotch and watching soaps for all big brother knows.
It is not scamming. Or at least not by those collecting. The real problem is that a vote hungry Liberal government set the rules up this way. Course now if Harper fixes the problem he will be viewed as being the a$$hole by the lefties.
What a bunch of whiners; I remember when retirement age was reduced from 72 to 65, it wasn't that long ago. And that's part of what causes the pension mess.
If you see Penguins you are too far south and if you gasp for air you are too far inland.
The cheapest way there is apparently a life-raft that starts it's journey off Vancouver Island and you flip on the ERB in about 4 weeks if the doldrums are small. Taking your own boat might help you make a living if you can meet some locals that would be willing to guide you around safely when you have some paying guests on board. Give them the bigger profit and full ownership of the boat and they would have to hire somebody to prowl the tourist places for clients and able to purchase a replacement boat when that one wears out.
The business could range from a 30ft that could do 6 people for a weekend to a 130' cat that is capable of holding 1600 people on a day cruise.
Just be sure to check in you anti-ship missiles when you first enter a new Nation, they might even give them back when your destination includes International Waters and a different Nation. McGregor used to make a water ballast single masted sloop that has a water-line that is more than 60ft. Dump out the water and attach a modern version of a paddle wheel and going far up-river and coastal flood planes is a new area for the tourists. Almost any size boat would allow you to travel the whole coast of South America doing the same thing, not to chilly, not too hot.
Perhaps some clear pods that be lowered and the tourists would get a 360deg view of Penguins underwater, BC could use then for the whale watching but their designs would be towed behind and steerable and they would be keeping pace with the cruising whales. Seal colonies would be the stationary pods and be anchored just off the busiest part of the sea traffic. Chummed water for the shark fans and no SCUBA certification needed and you can text from the pods that are just too big to swallow and the float in an emergency. Riding the waves in a huge storm might also be another sourse of income nor that recovery could be as easy as following the beacon. The chair for that model might want to be mounted like a gyroscope and have a center of gravity that keeps the occupant in a 'mostly' upright position. Any ride that would involve crashing onto a shore would beend some sort of 'bounce factor' so it ricochets off the rocks (like 80 ft straight up) rather than a dead stop that would trigger air-bags in a car.
What is the investment factor so far including insurance and waiver agreements compared to potential income from tourism and sale of the various pod designs for use by 'the Company' and other companies and individuals in various locations throughout the watery parts of the globe?
Last edited:
Instead of recognizing your poor aged mothers contribution to society you discounted her lifes work without blinking at word #14 and then as a distant second thought (you were always first in her mind) at word #22 you cover your unworthy of her love ass. We should give her your pension as well and make you sleep under the porch. What an ungrateful mutant offspring.
Yes, i expect every country to act in their own best interests.. but within the context of objective mutual interests.. rather than that of a global, post national trading and financial cartel.. utterly amoral and predatory and acting exclusively its own best interest.
I propose thes the healthiest of all trading relationships.. one that realizes good fences make good neighbours and ensures the primacy of activating the productive forces and potential of a national economy.. rather than playing one country off against another for the profit on neither, only that of the middleman.
As for your comments of printing currency.. there is no difference between printing bonds.. and printing currency.. except bonds require you to pay interest. Nothing could be worse than what we have now, with currencies and currency derivatives sloshing around the world completely unregulated... comprising a claim of many times the world's productive capacity. When this collapses.. as it will inevitably will.. it will wash away the world's financial system.
It is already being held together by string and bubble gum.. you see an encroaching collapse approaching in Europe, in fact, around the world. Free Markets have FAILED and are IN a state of imminent self destruction.
Last edited:
Research belies PM’s warning about OAS
Expert advice commissioned by the federal government contradicts Stephen Harper’s warnings that Canada can’t afford the looming bill for Old Age Security payments.
The Prime Minister and his ministers forcefully defended their surprise plans to review OAS on Monday, as the year’s first sitting of Parliament exploded with accusations from the opposition that the Conservatives misled Canadians during the 2011 federal election.
Mr. Harper held his ground, insisting Canada’s aging population means Ottawa must change the rules for future seniors to ensure it has the long-term cash to cut a growing number of monthly cheques. The Prime Minister’s decision to signal his planned pension changes while in Europe last week was partly to remind Canadians of the deep problems European governments are facing because of social programs they can’t afford.
But research prepared at Ottawa’s request argues Canada’s pension system is in far better shape than the Europeans’, and there’s no need to raise the retirement age. Edward Whitehouse – who researches pension policy on behalf of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank – was asked by Ottawa to study and report on how Canada stacks up internationally when it comes to pensions.
His conclusion: “The analysis suggests that Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes,” and “there is no pressing financial or fiscal need to increase pension ages in the foreseeable future.”
While other OECD countries face big pension problems, the report predicts Canada will do just fine as the baby boomers retire. That’s because, as Canada heads into the boomer crunch, it spends far less than the OECD average on public pensions. Further, Canada’s relatively high levels of immigration will partially offset the distortions of an aging population, and Canadians tend to save more independently through RRSPs and workplace pensions than Europeans.
The report is one of six that fed into a larger summary paper written by the University of Calgary’s Jack Mintz that reported to federal and provincial finance ministers at a December, 2009, meeting. While this supporting research was overshadowed at the time, it stands in sharp contrast to forceful warnings now coming from the Conservative government.
Mr. Harper repeated his view Monday that Canada’s aging population threatens social programs. “Everybody understands that there are demographic realities that do threaten the viability of these programs over the longer term, and we will make sure that these programs are funded and viable for the future generations that will need them,” he told the House of Commons.
A spokesperson for Human Resources Minister Diane Finley responded to questions about Mr. Whitehouse’s report by pointing to the latest actuary report on the OAS, which stated the cost of the program will nearly triple by 2030.
Ministers refused to provide details of the proposed changes and would only say that current recipients of OAS will not be affected.
The government’s claims leave experts baffled. Thomas Klassen, a York University political science professor who co-authored a 2010 report on Canada’s pension system, said his own research concluded that the OAS program is sustainable.
“I haven’t heard any academic argue that there’s a crisis with OAS, which is why I was surprised a few days ago when the Prime Minister seemed to say there was a crisis,” he said. “Because I don’t know where that came from.”
Prof. Klassen said he suspects the federal government has concluded that reducing OAS costs is an easy way to save money over the long term because it can be done unilaterally without negotiating with the provinces or public-sector unions. “It’s okay to look at Old Age Security pension payments,” he said, “but I think there’s got to be a lot more evidence that there’s a problem, and I don’t see that evidence.”
Kevin Milligan, a University of British Columbia economics professor who co-authored another of the supporting research papers prepared for Ottawa, is also of the view that there is no OAS crisis. He says the government’s use of statistics showing the cost of OAS will climb from $36.5-billion in 2010 to $108-billion in 2030 is not very meaningful because of the impact of inflation. He notes the rise is less alarming when measured as a percentage of economic growth.
“As an economist, I would never characterize things in terms of nominal dollars in the future because it’s hard to put those in context,” he said. “I don’t know what we’ll be paying for a litre of milk then.”
When the House of Commons finance committee studied pension issues in 2010, Mr. Whitehouse appeared as a witness and discussed his research.
“Canada's pension system is looking good on the measures of adequacy. It is also looking good on measures of financial sustainability,” Mr. Whitehouse told MPs. “Canada does not face the same financial sustainability problems as many other OECD member countries do, particularly in Europe and among the East Asian countries, Japan and Korea, whose populations are aging most rapidly.”
At the end of its study, the committee’s final report did not recommend raising the age of eligibility for OAS or reducing benefits. However, a minority report by the committee’s Conservative MPs said payment rates for the OAS and the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors should be reviewed.
Research belies PM's warning about OAS - The Globe and Mail
Citing ‘enthusiastic support,’ Tories move to cap pension bill debate
The Conservative government moved Tuesday to limit debate on a pension reform bill that will create new Pooled Retirement Pension Plans.
Government House Leader Peter Van Loan argued the move to invoke a process called “time allocation” was justified because the Conservatives won the last election by campaigning on the need for PRPPs.
He said there is “enthusiastic support” for this new pension option, yet the opposition is focused on delay tactics.
“Why are they so determined to keep Canadians from having that option?” he argued in a special half-hour debate triggered by the motion. “It [time allocation] allows for debate to continue but it ensures we will actually make decisions.”
Mr. Van Loan made the accusations of delay in spite of the fact that the government only opened debate on the bill for the first time Monday.
The opposition NDP and Liberals attacked the move as “a disgrace,” arguing that it marks the 13th time the majority Conservative government has limited debate through time allocation or closure motions.
With the bells calling MPs to vote on the motion, NDP MP Chris Charlton held a hurried news conference to announce that – as opposition whip – she would be refusing to perform her ceremonial duties of walking down the aisle with Mr. Van Loan to kick off the vote as a form of protest.
She said it was “absolutely ridiculous” for the government to move time allocation after one day of debate. Ms. Charlton claimed the move is connected to controversy over Mr. Harper’s speech last week in which he signalled changes were coming to Old Age Security.
“The government has failed Canadian seniors and is now talking about gutting OAS,” she said.
Liberal MP Judy Sgro argued that opposition MPs were also elected and have a right to debate pension reform.
“We were elected and our job is democracy,” she said. “It’s a slap in the face to every Canadian.”
The government motion would limit second reading debate to two more days before a vote would take place to send the bill to committee. It would then be debated at committee, and then again in the House of Commons at report stage and third reading. If passed by the House, the legislation would be debated again in the Senate.
The debate over PRPPs comes as pension reform has suddenly jumped to the top of the political agenda in Ottawa. Prime Minister Stephen Harper surprised many last week by signalling changes are needed to Old Age Security to ensure that it is sustainable.
The federal government has been studying all aspects of Canada’s pension and retirement savings options for several years now. Some of that research noted that many middle-income Canadians are not saving enough to maintain their current standard of living in retirement.
The government argues that PRPPs will help address this by targeting employees of small businesses that do not currently offer workplace pensions. These small businesses would auto-enroll new hires into the system, though workers would have the right to opt out. Federal rules would not force employers to contribute to their workforce PRPPs, though provinces could make such contributions mandatory.
The contributions to PRPPs would be managed by the private sector at “low cost,” but the legislation does not define what low cost will mean in practice.
Citing "enthusiastic support," Tories move to cap pension bill debate - The Globe and Mail
Expert advice commissioned by the federal government contradicts Stephen Harper’s warnings that Canada can’t afford the looming bill for Old Age Security payments.
The Prime Minister and his ministers forcefully defended their surprise plans to review OAS on Monday, as the year’s first sitting of Parliament exploded with accusations from the opposition that the Conservatives misled Canadians during the 2011 federal election.
Mr. Harper held his ground, insisting Canada’s aging population means Ottawa must change the rules for future seniors to ensure it has the long-term cash to cut a growing number of monthly cheques. The Prime Minister’s decision to signal his planned pension changes while in Europe last week was partly to remind Canadians of the deep problems European governments are facing because of social programs they can’t afford.
But research prepared at Ottawa’s request argues Canada’s pension system is in far better shape than the Europeans’, and there’s no need to raise the retirement age. Edward Whitehouse – who researches pension policy on behalf of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank – was asked by Ottawa to study and report on how Canada stacks up internationally when it comes to pensions.
His conclusion: “The analysis suggests that Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes,” and “there is no pressing financial or fiscal need to increase pension ages in the foreseeable future.”
While other OECD countries face big pension problems, the report predicts Canada will do just fine as the baby boomers retire. That’s because, as Canada heads into the boomer crunch, it spends far less than the OECD average on public pensions. Further, Canada’s relatively high levels of immigration will partially offset the distortions of an aging population, and Canadians tend to save more independently through RRSPs and workplace pensions than Europeans.
The report is one of six that fed into a larger summary paper written by the University of Calgary’s Jack Mintz that reported to federal and provincial finance ministers at a December, 2009, meeting. While this supporting research was overshadowed at the time, it stands in sharp contrast to forceful warnings now coming from the Conservative government.
Mr. Harper repeated his view Monday that Canada’s aging population threatens social programs. “Everybody understands that there are demographic realities that do threaten the viability of these programs over the longer term, and we will make sure that these programs are funded and viable for the future generations that will need them,” he told the House of Commons.
A spokesperson for Human Resources Minister Diane Finley responded to questions about Mr. Whitehouse’s report by pointing to the latest actuary report on the OAS, which stated the cost of the program will nearly triple by 2030.
Ministers refused to provide details of the proposed changes and would only say that current recipients of OAS will not be affected.
The government’s claims leave experts baffled. Thomas Klassen, a York University political science professor who co-authored a 2010 report on Canada’s pension system, said his own research concluded that the OAS program is sustainable.
“I haven’t heard any academic argue that there’s a crisis with OAS, which is why I was surprised a few days ago when the Prime Minister seemed to say there was a crisis,” he said. “Because I don’t know where that came from.”
Prof. Klassen said he suspects the federal government has concluded that reducing OAS costs is an easy way to save money over the long term because it can be done unilaterally without negotiating with the provinces or public-sector unions. “It’s okay to look at Old Age Security pension payments,” he said, “but I think there’s got to be a lot more evidence that there’s a problem, and I don’t see that evidence.”
Kevin Milligan, a University of British Columbia economics professor who co-authored another of the supporting research papers prepared for Ottawa, is also of the view that there is no OAS crisis. He says the government’s use of statistics showing the cost of OAS will climb from $36.5-billion in 2010 to $108-billion in 2030 is not very meaningful because of the impact of inflation. He notes the rise is less alarming when measured as a percentage of economic growth.
“As an economist, I would never characterize things in terms of nominal dollars in the future because it’s hard to put those in context,” he said. “I don’t know what we’ll be paying for a litre of milk then.”
When the House of Commons finance committee studied pension issues in 2010, Mr. Whitehouse appeared as a witness and discussed his research.
“Canada's pension system is looking good on the measures of adequacy. It is also looking good on measures of financial sustainability,” Mr. Whitehouse told MPs. “Canada does not face the same financial sustainability problems as many other OECD member countries do, particularly in Europe and among the East Asian countries, Japan and Korea, whose populations are aging most rapidly.”
At the end of its study, the committee’s final report did not recommend raising the age of eligibility for OAS or reducing benefits. However, a minority report by the committee’s Conservative MPs said payment rates for the OAS and the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors should be reviewed.
Research belies PM's warning about OAS - The Globe and Mail
Citing ‘enthusiastic support,’ Tories move to cap pension bill debate
The Conservative government moved Tuesday to limit debate on a pension reform bill that will create new Pooled Retirement Pension Plans.
Government House Leader Peter Van Loan argued the move to invoke a process called “time allocation” was justified because the Conservatives won the last election by campaigning on the need for PRPPs.
He said there is “enthusiastic support” for this new pension option, yet the opposition is focused on delay tactics.
“Why are they so determined to keep Canadians from having that option?” he argued in a special half-hour debate triggered by the motion. “It [time allocation] allows for debate to continue but it ensures we will actually make decisions.”
Mr. Van Loan made the accusations of delay in spite of the fact that the government only opened debate on the bill for the first time Monday.
The opposition NDP and Liberals attacked the move as “a disgrace,” arguing that it marks the 13th time the majority Conservative government has limited debate through time allocation or closure motions.
With the bells calling MPs to vote on the motion, NDP MP Chris Charlton held a hurried news conference to announce that – as opposition whip – she would be refusing to perform her ceremonial duties of walking down the aisle with Mr. Van Loan to kick off the vote as a form of protest.
She said it was “absolutely ridiculous” for the government to move time allocation after one day of debate. Ms. Charlton claimed the move is connected to controversy over Mr. Harper’s speech last week in which he signalled changes were coming to Old Age Security.
“The government has failed Canadian seniors and is now talking about gutting OAS,” she said.
Liberal MP Judy Sgro argued that opposition MPs were also elected and have a right to debate pension reform.
“We were elected and our job is democracy,” she said. “It’s a slap in the face to every Canadian.”
The government motion would limit second reading debate to two more days before a vote would take place to send the bill to committee. It would then be debated at committee, and then again in the House of Commons at report stage and third reading. If passed by the House, the legislation would be debated again in the Senate.
The debate over PRPPs comes as pension reform has suddenly jumped to the top of the political agenda in Ottawa. Prime Minister Stephen Harper surprised many last week by signalling changes are needed to Old Age Security to ensure that it is sustainable.
The federal government has been studying all aspects of Canada’s pension and retirement savings options for several years now. Some of that research noted that many middle-income Canadians are not saving enough to maintain their current standard of living in retirement.
The government argues that PRPPs will help address this by targeting employees of small businesses that do not currently offer workplace pensions. These small businesses would auto-enroll new hires into the system, though workers would have the right to opt out. Federal rules would not force employers to contribute to their workforce PRPPs, though provinces could make such contributions mandatory.
The contributions to PRPPs would be managed by the private sector at “low cost,” but the legislation does not define what low cost will mean in practice.
Citing "enthusiastic support," Tories move to cap pension bill debate - The Globe and Mail
Totally agree.
Harper announces pension changes for people getting less than $20,000 a year, for an event at Davos for the superrich that costs $50,000 per head to attend. Is it the superrich who do most of the investing in Canada? I don't think so.
Years ago Preston Manning said the market should set the minimum wage, that turned me off the Reform Party big time. The grassroots people and the superrich seem to have something in common, and its not money here. A desire to be a foot soldier and take orders from the high and mighty possibly.
Harper seems like a flunky here, and totally unaware of growing inequality and the questioning of capitalism that is going on. What me, worry? Says the small time bean counter.
Well, the problems with the market economy is that gov'ts have not been neutral towards it and speculation tends to have an unwarranted effect on the market economy; sometimes just as much effect as supply & demand. But I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to predict an imminent crash. All it needs is adjustment. It'd help if money actually had a base to support it, too.
Um, is there any specific reason that the rich and super-rich need OAS? Seems silly to me to give multimillionars $540.12 every month.
Um, is there any specific reason that the rich and super-rich need OAS? Seems silly to me to give multimillionars $540.12 every month.
NDP set to pressure Tories on OAS plans
The NDP is accusing the Harper government of taking advantage of Canada’s seniors to balance its budget and will use its opposition day this week to try to goad Conservatives into revealing its plans to reform Old Age Security.
MPs will debate this motion Thursday: “That this House rejects calls by the Prime Minister to balance the Conservative deficit on the backs of Canada’s seniors by means such as raising the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and calls on the government to make the reduction and eventual elimination of seniors’ poverty a cornerstone of the next budget.”
The opposition parties are allowed a certain number of days in which they can frame the debate and set the agenda in the House of Commons.
This motion, which is to be voted on Monday, is unlikely to pass, given the Conservative majority. However, opposition day debates are always revealing of fault-lines and different positions from the parties.
Since the House returned Monday from its six-week Christmas, the controversy over pensions and reforms has dominated. The NDP is now keeping up the pressure with its opposition day motion.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, the 27-year-old rookie MP from Pierrefonds-Dollard, is introducing the motion. She is the party’s deputy critic for seniors.
It is significant that the NDP has chosen a young person to lead off the debate on Old Age Security. But the speculation is the government is planning to move up the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 years of age – and the NDP wants young people to realize that their future retirement security is tied up in this issue.
In fact, both opposition parties have seized on the fact that there is now uncertainty for baby boomers and even younger Canadians around their retirement.
The Prime Minister touched off this storm of controversy last week in his speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Without giving any details, he noted that changes to Canada’s demographics means that some retirement programs may not be sustainable in the future.
Since then, the government has moved to reassure seniors that their OAS benefits will continue. Rather, the Conservatives have said they are looking to mid to long-term changes.
NDP set to pressure Tories on OAS plans - The Globe and Mail
The NDP is accusing the Harper government of taking advantage of Canada’s seniors to balance its budget and will use its opposition day this week to try to goad Conservatives into revealing its plans to reform Old Age Security.
MPs will debate this motion Thursday: “That this House rejects calls by the Prime Minister to balance the Conservative deficit on the backs of Canada’s seniors by means such as raising the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and calls on the government to make the reduction and eventual elimination of seniors’ poverty a cornerstone of the next budget.”
The opposition parties are allowed a certain number of days in which they can frame the debate and set the agenda in the House of Commons.
This motion, which is to be voted on Monday, is unlikely to pass, given the Conservative majority. However, opposition day debates are always revealing of fault-lines and different positions from the parties.
Since the House returned Monday from its six-week Christmas, the controversy over pensions and reforms has dominated. The NDP is now keeping up the pressure with its opposition day motion.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, the 27-year-old rookie MP from Pierrefonds-Dollard, is introducing the motion. She is the party’s deputy critic for seniors.
It is significant that the NDP has chosen a young person to lead off the debate on Old Age Security. But the speculation is the government is planning to move up the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 years of age – and the NDP wants young people to realize that their future retirement security is tied up in this issue.
In fact, both opposition parties have seized on the fact that there is now uncertainty for baby boomers and even younger Canadians around their retirement.
The Prime Minister touched off this storm of controversy last week in his speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Without giving any details, he noted that changes to Canada’s demographics means that some retirement programs may not be sustainable in the future.
Since then, the government has moved to reassure seniors that their OAS benefits will continue. Rather, the Conservatives have said they are looking to mid to long-term changes.
NDP set to pressure Tories on OAS plans - The Globe and Mail
I was wondering about this a few years back when there were rumblings about the healthcare system being over-burdened by boomers. Next thing I know, rumblings about pensions began. The result? We started rearranging our entire financial system for more growth and saving, as opposed to leaning on income and saving. Almost done now and it has had a positive effect. Kind of sad that few people take notice of stuff like this and even fewer act on it.