Time to Kill OAS??

[#juan]

Can you not see that you are saying it is a Social programme. If it is free money awarded to the Seniors you are not saying it is a one time gift because there is a budget surplus. You are saying that it is given for the purpose of improving the financial condition to a sector of the population that has not earned or contributed.

That is nonsense! OAS used to be called "Old Age Pension" and it has been around since 1927. A lot of people planning their retirement, count on OAS and count on getting it when they hit the age of 65, or 67 or what ever it will be. It goes without saying that people think they deserve to get their old age pension. The government should be handling the OAS just like they handle Canada Pension. To say people have not earned or contributed is dopey. Everyone who paid federal income tax paid into the OAS.

 

[TenPenny]

The government should be handling the OAS just they handle Canada Pension. To say people have not earned or contributed is dopey.

Those two sentences contradict each other, by the way.

 

[Kreskin]

I thought the quote also inclulded the young.

Regardless, I agreement you that getting old does have financial costs associated with it and as a society we need to ensure that our seniors are able to live comfortably. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that billions of dollars are given to seniors every year through OAS that they do not need to live comfortably.

BTW are you comparing OAS and the new Child Tax Benefit program? Please remember that OAS has an individual maximum of $111K before they lose their cheques and the Child Tax Benefit is $110K for a family of 4 when they lose all of the child tax benefit cheque. Two completely different situations, I would assume I wouldn't have to go through all of the additional expenses of food, education, clothing, etc associated with 4 people compared to 1.

111 is when they have lost all (every last dollar) of OAS. They start losing it a 67k, about 15 cents on every dollar of income they have over that threshold until at 111k it's all gone.

IE $80,000 total income:

80K - 67K = 13K x 15% = $1950 of OAS that needs to be repaid.

 

[JLM]

That is nonsense! OAS used to be called "Old Age Pension" and it has been around since 1927. A lot of people planning their retirement, count on OAS and count on getting it when they hit the age of 65, or 67 or what ever it will be. It goes without saying that people think they deserve to get their old age pension. The government should be handling the OAS just they handle Canada Pension. To say people have not earned or contributed is dopey. Everyone who paid federal income tax paid into the OAS.

That may or may not be entirely valid! What we are up against here is the emotional aspect could prove to be more costly than the financial aspect. It's too late now but perhaps a better plan back before it all got started was Gov't. just to keep its nose right out of financial matters and free up the tax money so people could buy insurance or invest to handle their OWN financial needs. Gov't. tends to baby people while raking in a profit for the trough.

 

[L Gilbert]

BTW, your personal attacks are starting to get boring. Swearing and personal attacks have been proven to be signs off lower intelligence.

And then in the very next sentence ......

Imagine if original builders of our country had the same attitude you had......"Man, can you imagine the headache and costs associated with creating a new country! Forget it, let's enjoy the life we have even if we don't think it is fair." What a loser attitude!

If something needs changing then change it.

That's fine, if it would actually make a difference and there are no other more important issues to change. Especially at a cost of a large sum of money. Large programs like OAS simply cost huge sums of money to change. Why? Because gov't has to study the issue for months on end before even considering issuing a bill, then it has to get the bill to pass, and after the bill passes, there are peripheral costs such as changing all the paperwork to reflect the change and so on ad nauseum.

I've never said anything about CPP, that is something workers have worked hard to pay for and have every right to collect. According to the majority of the OAS supporters here, OAS and GIS are social assistance programs for seniors. So why have two of them?

I agree to a point. Retirement security could have been developed a lot better than it was. But such is the folly of gov'ts.

If as many here claim, OAS and GIS are social assistance programs, let's truly make it a assistance program and help only those that need it.

OAS isn't really social assistance and GIS is.

I've noticed that none of my opponents on this topic have addressed the millions of canadian seniors that go south for months each winter or go golfing everyday in the summertime in any of their debating points........coincidence.....I think not.

So what are the stats for people that abuse the system as opposed to those that don't?

Many seniors today choose to work long after the have officially retired. Age is NOT a barrier to working. Try telling all seniors to retire and you'll have a rebellion, many of our seniors are active and able to take care of themselves. However, like other canadians some do need help to live a reasonable livestyle and wee need to help them.

Age IS a barrier to working. I'm not far from retirement age yet there's no way I would expect some company to hire me over some young fella unless they couldn't find a young fella for the same job.

Then how about giving every canadian the $6K instead of just the seniors?

I'm all for that. lol Wife's little truck needs new paint and a couple dings fixed.

 

[tibear]

I've tried to explain it (apparently in vain)- Seniors who are living that high on the hog and getting most of that money taxed back. Sometimes there are cans of worms that it just isn't prudent, wise or profitable to open up. Seniors are an emotional issue- some of them have contributed for 50 years a considerable sum of money to the Government trough- so maybe it's only proper that they can get a chance to wallow in the trough with the politicians. Lets take a number of 1000 seniors receiving OAP, Perhaps 300 of them don't "deserve" it by your standards. So you are going to scruitinize the 1000 to arrive at 300 to chop. Now you are open to a class action suit. In all likelihood it will be deemed proper for them to continue receiving the money until the case is settled in court (possibly 3 years) and probably $millions of dollars. So who is the winner here? It's certainly not the taxpayer! :smile:

So you would still be in favour of the universal family allowance? It wasn't worth the effort to go through and change the program which allowed the government to actually give more money to those that needed it by taking away from those that didn't require the "free" money.

With respect to the question of "Social" or not, tibear, I don't think you know what you are saying. You certainly confuse yourself.

However, you whole attitude is one I find rather creepy. You tout the ususal line of the libertarian and larder it with the same untruths. "Millions take winter vacations on OAS and millions play golf." The fact is, as I posted earlier, that there are more than one million seniors living in poverty: poverty even under the official designation that is not reflective of the actual degree of poverty. There is
More than a million more who are counted as close to that ungenerous threshold.

Millions of Seniors do not visit dentists or opticians and live in cramped conditions. A much more accurate assessment than yours.

And why should those disadvantaged seniors be treated any differently than the millions of non-seniors that are in the same position???

 

[TenPenny]

And why should those disadvantaged seniors be treated any differently than the millions of non-seniors that are in the same position???

Why should wealthy seniors be treated any differently than non-wealthy seniors?

 

[Kreskin]

So you would still be in favour of the universal family allowance? It wasn't worth the effort to go through and change the program which allowed the government to actually give more money to those that needed it by taking away from those that didn't require the "free" money.



And why should those disadvantaged seniors be treated any differently than the millions of non-seniors that are in the same position???

They aren't in the same position. Younger people are not old.

 

[tibear]

You have the choice of having kids or not. Like buying a new car every year. So far as I am aware no one has the option of not getting old.

But you did have the option of saving for your own retirement.

Don't get me wrong there are many seniors who didn't make enough money to save money through out their lives and need help. We can look at all of the minor issues that come with this discussion point. However, no one has yet been able to give a valid reason why seniors should be treated differently than other canadians with regards to:
- social assistance
- receiving regular cheques from government without a means criteria

That is nonsense! OAS used to be called "Old Age Pension" and it has been around since 1927. A lot of people planning their retirement, count on OAS and count on getting it when they hit the age of 65, or 67 or what ever it will be. It goes without saying that people think they deserve to get their old age pension. The government should be handling the OAS just like they handle Canada Pension. To say people have not earned or contributed is dopey. Everyone who paid federal income tax paid into the OAS.

Juan, using your philosophy, have we not all paid into the social assistance program and thus should we not ALL have the right to collect social assistance?

OAS and CPP are two completely different issues. CPP is a program that people have collected directly off their paycheques and is saved in a program specifically for pensions. OAS comes from general taxes and isn't designated for any particular program, governments of the day decide how that money will be spent.

 

[#juan]

tibear. How old are you?

 

[tibear]

111 is when they have lost all (every last dollar) of OAS. They start losing it a 67k, about 15 cents on every dollar of income they have over that threshold until at 111k it's all gone.

IE $80,000 total income:

80K - 67K = 13K x 15% = $1950 of OAS that needs to be repaid.

Please remember that the $80K I'm using is FAMILY income and you are using SINGLE income as your criteria.

 

[Kreskin]

But you did have the option of saving for your own retirement.

Don't get me wrong there are many seniors who didn't make enough money to save money through out their lives and need help. We can look at all of the minor issues that come with this discussion point. However, no one has yet been able to give a valid reason why seniors should be treated differently than other canadians with regards to:
- social assistance
- receiving regular cheques from government without a means criteria



Juan, using your philosophy, have we not all paid into the social assistance program and thus should we not ALL have the right to collect social assistance?

OAS and CPP are two completely different issues. CPP is a program that people have collected directly off their paycheques and is saved in a program specifically for pensions. OAS comes from general taxes and isn't designated for any particular program, governments of the day decide how that money will be spent.

The burden of proof is on you I'm afraid. Once you explain the economics of removing OAS then you have an argument to make. Anectodatal arguments don't justify it. There is a bigger picture at stake and you need to address all it and not just hang your hat on one simple "fairness" beef.

 

[tibear]

Quote: Originally Posted by tibear

BTW, your personal attacks are starting to get boring. Swearing and personal attacks have been proven to be signs off lower intelligence.
​

And then in the very next sentence ......




Quote:

Imagine if original builders of our country had the same attitude you had......"Man, can you imagine the headache and costs associated with creating a new country! Forget it, let's enjoy the life we have even if we don't think it is fair." What a loser attitude!​

​

The difference I'm calling your attitude a loser NOT you.

 

[Kreskin]

Please remember that the $80K I'm using is FAMILY income and you are using SINGLE income as your criteria.

The average senior couple makes about 45k a year. The average non-senior family makes about 75k a year. The average 80 year old will spend more on health care related expenses than most entire families under 60 will.

 

[tibear]

OAS isn't really social assistance and GIS is.

Age IS a barrier to working. I'm not far from retirement age yet there's no way I would expect some company to hire me over some young fella unless they couldn't find a young fella for the same job.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of OAS and GIS, it is the other proponents of OAS that have claimed that it is a social assistance program. I call it buying votes.

It certainly is more difficult to get a job as you age but that isn't the point I'm making. I gave the Child Tax Benefit program modification that came from the Family Allowance program and wonder why something similar can't take place with OAS and GIS.

Only give money to those seniors that really need the money.

Why should wealthy seniors be treated any differently than non-wealthy seniors?

Because one group doesn't need the money? Are you really serious asking that question???

They aren't in the same position. Younger people are not old.

And how does that make their requirement for money different than a young person?

Let me try and guess, that the reason for their expenses may change as a person ages but not the fact that they need money to survive.

Let us not forget that there are millions of non-seniors that are not able to work, which seems to be the reason most people here give as to why seniors are different than younger canadians. How are those people different than our seniors?

Non-senior with medical reasons why they cannot work have housing, food and medical costs to deal with.....senior with medical reasons why they cannot work (some are aged related) have housing, good and medical costs to deal with.......the difference is what exactly?

tibear. How old are you?

Not that I see any reason that would have any bearing on the discussion but lets just say that I'm probably a LOT older than you believe I am.

 

[TenPenny]

Because one group doesn't need the money? Are you really serious asking that question???

Yes, I'm serious. You refuse to understand what everyone has told you about OAS, but you keep on with this thread, asking the same questions over and over, while ignoring the responses.

So tell me, why do wealthy seniors NOT deserve OAS?

 

[tibear]

The burden of proof is on you I'm afraid. Once you explain the economics of removing OAS then you have an argument to make. Anectodatal arguments don't justify it. There is a bigger picture at stake and you need to address all it and not just hang your hat on one simple "fairness" beef.

Kreskin, can I ask you explain the difference between the Family Allowance change that took place and why you don't the believe should take place OAS.

 

[Kreskin]

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of OAS and GIS, it is the other proponents of OAS that have claimed that it is a social assistance program. I call it buying votes.

It certainly is more difficult to get a job as you age but that isn't the point I'm making. I gave the Child Tax Benefit program modification that came from the Family Allowance program and wonder why something similar can't take place with OAS and GIS.

Only give money to those seniors that really need the money.



Because one group doesn't need the money? Are you really serious asking that question???



And how does that make their requirement for money different than a young person?

Let me try and guess, that the reason for their expenses may change as a person ages but not the fact that they need money to survive.

Let us not forget that there are millions of non-seniors that are not able to work, which seems to be the reason most people here give as to why seniors are different than younger canadians. How are those people different than our seniors?

Non-senior with medical reasons why they cannot work have housing, food and medical costs to deal with.....senior with medical reasons why they cannot work (some are aged related) have housing, good and medical costs to deal with.......the difference is what exactly?



Not that I see any reason that would have any bearing on the discussion but lets just say that I'm probably a LOT older than you believe I am.

If you can't work there are programs for that. When you're 85 and want the government to retrain you for the workforce I suspect you won't get that benefit.

 

[tibear]

The average senior couple makes about 45k a year. The average non-senior family makes about 75k a year. The average 80 year old will spend more on health care related expenses than most entire families under 60 will.

That explains the difference between "what" the senior and the non-senior spends their money on to survive but doesn't take away from the fact that everyone has expenses that they have to spend to live.

Remember, I'm not saying take away all money from seniors just make a change similar to the Child Tax Benefit that took place with families in the 90's.

Yes, I'm serious. You refuse to understand what everyone has told you about OAS, but you keep on with this thread, asking the same questions over and over, while ignoring the responses.

So tell me, why do wealthy seniors NOT deserve OAS?

Why doesn't every canadian deserve social assistance? Exact same question, two different groups.

If you can't work there are programs for that. When you're 85 and want the government to retrain you for the workforce I suspect you won't get that benefit.

You most certainly do qualify for the benefit, there is no longer age discrimination when it comes to employment. Mandatory retirement is a thing of the past.

Do some companies age discriminate...absolutely but it is against the law. Is it more difficult for seniors to get employment than younger people....yes. But virtually every senior that wants to work can find a job somewhere.

Same arguements are made for the 20 year that has no experience. It is very difficult to get that first job but it is possible.

 

[Kreskin]

What's the maximum OAS these days, about 6300 a year? On average that's 23% of a senior's income according to HRSDC.

That explains the difference between "what" the senior and the non-senior spends their money on to survive but doesn't take away from the fact that everyone has expenses that they have to spend to live.

Remember, I'm not saying take away all money from seniors just make a change similar to the Child Tax Benefit that took place with families in the 90's.



Why doesn't every canadian deserve social assistance? Exact same question, two different groups.



You most certainly do qualify for the benefit, there is no longer age discrimination when it comes to employment. Mandatory retirement is a thing of the past.

Do some companies age discriminate...absolutely but it is against the law. Is it more difficult for seniors to get employment than younger people....yes. But virtually every senior that wants to work can find a job somewhere.

Same arguements are made for the 20 year that has no experience. It is very difficult to get that first job but it is possible.

And an 85 year old can get an apprenticeship program too. No age discrimination at all. One little caveat is you need to have an employer back you. What snowballs chance in hell do think there is of that happening?