Diane Finley’s expected to tell a crowd at the Canadian Club in Toronto today that younger Canadians may face consequences down the road, if “hard decisions” aren’t made now to Old Age Security.
That according to a Globe & Mail report.
The local MP and Human Resources Minister is expected to make the case that the government’s larger concern is the growing cost of government programs as a whole in the coming decades.
The idea being the relative number of taxpayers to cover these costs will shrink by half.
But Hamilton NDP member and pension critic Wayne Marston says the government’s warnings about future government revenue seem to assume the economy will be sluggish for years, which he suggests won’t be the case.
I know that lottery money is used for infastructure projects but why can’t some it be used to stash away to build up the Old Age Benefits rather then changing the eligible age 67. Also, when seniors turn 65 now, they get other senior perks, such as drugs, discounts at the stores, etc. Will this new eligibility age to 67 effect the other perks seniors now get at 65?
“But Hamilton NDP member and pension critic Wayne Marston says the government’s warnings about future government revenue seem to assume the economy will be sluggish for years, which he suggests won’t be the case.”
Wayne, Wayne, Wayne. You’re wrong. The Conservatives are right, the economy will be sluggish for years. After all, look at the dismal failure of their touted Economic Action Plan. The real numbers of unemployed persons are going up. As long as Harper and Gang are running the show, the economy will be very sluggish.
Besides, how else are we going to pay for $30B fighter jets, other than making people work long and pay more in taxes? Jeeze Wayne, do the math!
I agree with Diane on this. It is a tough pill to swallow, and a right-minded move from the Conservatives. Finally they are acting like a true Conservative party!!!
The following generations will have a lower standard of living and cannot afford to pay for the Boomers who have had the BEST standard of living. Time to balance the books.
I concur.
As people are living longer and healthier, they can be productive after 65.
The biggest issue is that the ones changing the rules have their nose so far in the troff, it is hard to give credibility to their words.
slick
There are just so many aspects of this that I question and I have serious reservations regarding the fairness of raising the age of retirement. At least for all.
Lower income jobs are often the most back-breaking jobs. Lower income people cannot afford to save for retirement while raising a family. Often these jobs have no ‘pension plan’ that can be counted on. Having been a person who has done lots of heavy physical labour, I know in many of these jobs one is lucky to make it until 65 or even 60 working full time.
I feel that raising this number will push more people into welfare. Or, people trying to do this kind of labour until such an old age will result in serious health problems and any hope of having any time of quality retirement to play with the grand-kids will be lost.
I think CPP should be driven by job description and income. For example; if I am a desk jockey with no physical labour requirements and I have a healthy income of $70K or more, I should never be entitled to collect. But, if I am a brick layer’s helper (the guy who slugs the bricks) and I make less than $70K per year, I should be able to look at collecting at 55 years of age. (numbers are just an example to make my point)
I also do not like it when in tough times the first place we hear of cuts is to the elderly, health care, services for low income earners (like physio) etc. Not only do I hold our provincial government to count, but I will also question my federal government and ask for consideration.
Ms. Finley is doing a great job and I hope they are considering the long term consequences for hard labour lower income workers.
How can you say to the person making over 70k a year and always paying in that too bad you dont get anything for your efforts ??? Thats hog wash ….. they make you pay so there is money to collect when you retire . Not once has anyone brought up the amount we pay these people to screw us and their cushy pensions . We the people pay in and it is calculated on how much you have paid in . 90 % of the population look forward to knowing that there will be something when they retire at age 65 and its a bonus for people that have saved some money for their retirement . There is not enough Walmarts for everyone to be a geeter from the age 65 to the age 67 .
I think that we have to look at all programs differently and reflect in those programs how things are different today and will be in the future. Nothing stays the same, life is all about change. We should see the CPP differently as well. It should be look upon as a pension fund for the poorer of our country. Anyone who makes over $70K can very well afford to set up a good private pension fund for themselves and probably have the assets to further support a good retirement…also, people in the higher paying jobs normally have great pension funds from their place of employment. I know too many seniors who worked hard labour jobs for low pay who simply cannot afford to put anything away and those are the jobs where working beyond 60 is way too unrealistic to even think of. I also know a lot of seniors who keep rolling their CPP payments into mutual funds and will never live to spend their wealth. So, on one scale we have seniors who go without meds that McGuinty won’t cover, keep their heat just above freezing and seniors who see the CPP as more of a pain in the butt than anything else. We have to look after our seniors and show them the due respect they have earned. ‘That’s all….
So you still think those earning 70 k or more should contribute and not withdraw ???? Where is your head at ???
OAS is not based on contributions, it is based on residency. CPP is what you contribute and then collect. If you never work you’ll never get CPP. OAS comes from general tax payer money. If you live here (legally) for 40+ years you’ll get your full OAS.
I agree about capping OAS. As the name implies – it is security…not income.
EI is capped, so shoud OAS.
Another aspect is – Fed. Public Servants have their pensions clawed back by OAS. To save OAS, just remove OAS from the Public Pension Plan. Then the budgets are accurately reflecting the true costs.
Also – see I do agree with you Leasa…you should try it sometime.
Your logic on this is very biased and sounds almost communist..sorry I don’t agree.
I do agree cutting back on some programs has to happen BUT the programs that need to be cut are the non essential ones, not going to list any but there are many and another area that needs to have some cuts in spending is our over payed MP’s and MPP’s along with there huge fat pensions that we pay for, this alone would save tax payers plenty, they all need to take a cut back, minimum of 25% on their pay and pensions like we have been told by our government, lead by example and take a wage cut Diane.
Maybe the Toews Internet Registry would be a start…followed by re-purposeing that Gazebo, as well as scrapping Stephen Harpers plans to put a dome of the House of Commons….and no, I can’t make this stuff up.
With a pricetag of $42M, Harper wants to put a Dome over the House…the sun surely shines on friends of the Conservative party doesn’t it?
YES! Yes!
I am humbled to be in your presence! (or whatever Jason says)
Come on guys.. she’s great at her job and really knows whats going on!
I just got a flyer in the mail from her outlining how her party is doing so much to help the middle income earners in her riding. Like giving people tax breaks on their yearly public transit passes because they’re doing so much to save the environment.
Oops, guess she doesn’t know that we don’t have a working public transit system that allows the working class to get to work here (or in any other community other than the cities)… I’ll keep paying for the car / gas/ insurance I need to get around and get my wife and I to appointments or to run errands while making a crappy hourly wage. Don’t see any tax breaks or consideration for those living in small towns and paying a significant portion of my money to the government in taxes so they can have a a billion dollar glass roof on the parliament buildings. Oh yea, guess I don’t have a lot of use for a fancy tax free savings account either, because I can’t afford to save for retirement. I really see how all your tax breaks are making my life so good!
….as I am typing this I am also having a ‘live’ conversation about it. Ummm. I agree with my partner that it should not be geared to what you make pre-retirement, but gear to income post retirement. For example, if a person has assets that generate a good income after they retire, then they should not get to collect a pension. I also think that if we can do this, there should be enough money to increase what our seniors do collect. The maximum they get now is $1500. per month and that is with the supplement. That I am sure we can all agree is no where near enough to live on.
How very liberal of you Leasa!!
I notice how when YOU go out of pocket – the government needs to step up, otherwise – back off! Pay for your moms mess, and leave us off the hook, deal?
So, if I bust my butt my entire life, scrimp to pay to put myself through school while working full time, work overtime hours on weekends so I can get ahead on my mortgage, RRSP contributions … Bust my butt all my life to make $$ and the “neighbour boy that sits and draws pogey all summer, quits job after job, is too lazy to go to school – has every excuse in the book why he can’t do something – he’sthe guy that’s going to get government money when he retires?
If they are going to collect because they are low income then they should have to work for their personal funding.
How is that a fair system? If you work hard and make money we won’t give you any!
I’m not so sure why people are getting so upset with this OAS thing. I mean it is not the Pension plan… Also, people pay into EI, Health Care, education and at arms reach, the MIlitary, Dredging harbours etc…but people like my late Mother claimed no EI, spent no more than 12 days of her life in a Hospital and had Dr’s check-ups every 3 years, had only one child for schooling (me!) and never needed a harbour and served 6 years in the Military (gave back). She didn’t complain about it. She always said that she was happy NOT to have claimed EI etc.
If you make enough money, you should be HAPPY not to need OAS.
OAS is there for everyone it sucks that we have to keep paying all these taxes and the only thing people look forward to is OAS either to help them in retirement or as an extra for the work they have done . We havent heard any of the members of parliment say hey lets push our pension plan back from 55 to 67 like the rest of CANADIANS have we ?? Till then i say keep it at 65 !!!!!!
Lynda, a person cannot collect CPP on retirement unless they’ve paid into the system for 10 years (to get the max pay-out).
All I’m saying is, that for some, CPP payments are not needed and in fact can boost the person into a higher tax bracket. We need to readjust the whole plan. Did you know that a widow starts receiving a CPP cheque the minute her husband dies, even if she goes on to marry a wealthy man?
We have too many seniors living in absolute poverty and if we make the needed changes, we can actually boost what these folks get to live on. Some people did not have the luxury of being able to put away funds for their retirement because everything they earned had to go to feed their children and keep a roof over their heads. Not everyone in society is fortunate enough to have a light labour job that pays well.
Increasing the age is not in my opinion the right way to go. The job type and income after retirement is where we should be looking. IMHO
‘Entitlement’ my —-, I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn’t make my benefits some kind of charity or handout !! Government benefits, aka free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, 20 weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that’s welfare, and they have the nerve to call my retirement, an ‘entitlement’ !!!!!!…..and LEASA you and your half probably are making 500k plus a year and are a CONSERVATIVE or won the lottery or are collecting it now and this will not bother you and yours AND LYNDA
Lynda is right on the money on this one
I don’t necessarily agree with your formula, Leasa, but I do think I understand what you’re driving at. A lot of those folks who work really hard labour jobs can’t do them as long as people who have less labour-intensive jobs. Myself, I’ve done both, and I’m continuing my education which will be a ‘desk jockey’ type job.
I’m not saying I agree 100% of what you’re saying, but in the midst of that, you’re on to something. The Government does need to consider the fact that some people can’t do labour intensive jobs to 65 let alone 67. There may need to be a reclassification of OAS/GIS/CPP and years worked at different labour conditions. I’m not sure what such a program would look like, but it sure couldn’t hurt to kick the ball around and the MP’s/Civil Servants come up with some ideas.
So why are experts saying that the pension system will be fine? It seems to me that this is simply a Conservative plan to fool the people so they can take the savings that would result from extending the retirement age and using it to pay for something else.
Wouldn’t it be nice if our elected officials led by example……don’t worry they’ll
ensure the pot is full when they are delving in but when it’s our turn well we’re on our own. Democracy…..what a blast! Thanks Dianne….I’m sure we will be taken care of!
Great idea!
The experts now warn that those F-35 jets will cost us about $200 million each. So if we cut off 34,000 seniors from their OAS for a year then Harper can purchase one F-35 to protect the arctic from … well … those terrorists from Iran!
So there!
I notice wonder woman never once mentioned about MP’s pension or even Senate reform like they have been promising for years. Typical politicians. Damm them!!
Wow, I cannot believe Mrs Finley.
so basically what she’s saying is we have to make major changes because this very helpful program for all Canadians will be in trouble…
But meanwhile, they are not willing to cut their own spending like of course some useless battleships and fighter jets or even their own ridicule pension plans.
What is Mr Harper planning? the next war? is he that dumb? We as Canadians are well known to be the nice people and we help rebuilt after other destruct.
why can’t we stick to what we are known to be?
seriously I would prefer paying a bit more each pay then having the OAS changed to 67.
about they ask what Canadian want?
do you really think people will wait and retire at 67? people will go on Social aid for those 2 years and the cost will be the same.
what a bunch of morons.. I cannot believe their lack of knowledge of Canadians… Thankfully this madness shall be reverse at the next election. Adjust income for the OAS not the benefits.
When I was young……….ger……the Fraser Institute came out with a report – sometime in the 80′s suggesting that CPP, the Canada Pension plan would be broke before I would retire. I never actually expected to collect………a little crabby that I’ve paid a substantial amount into the plan every year (self employed, no one to make those contributions for me) AND perhaps now won,.t get to collect. CPP is based on forced contributions by everyone. OAS draws on general revenue and unless I am mistaken was designed to assist the lowest income seniors. I never expected to collect from OAS, just always figured it would be clawed back…………..parts of the pension are too. Read an interesting article (either CBC or CTV) on the Canada Pension plan and how changes during Paul Martins reign as finance minister have actually allowed it to become seff sustaining………enough money in there for payouts for the next 70 some odd years so there should not be a problem there unless of course one is conveniently manufactured. OAS is different, as I stated, it is dependent on general revenue.
Aren’t we happy that we voted to get an mp on the ruling side of government?!?
I mean all of the promised, defective causing, money and jobs are really flowing in! We are so lucky!
You know,these politicians seem pretty good at putting us into a deficit,no matter what look at the GST.It was to be temporary,and is now fixed together,where is that money gone.OAS is something that should not be messed with,Sure most of us can work past 65,but why should we.I agree with the back breaking minimal paying work that most of us endure at some point in our lives,but after paying in all those years its nice to think of enjoying some time off while you can still enjoy life.Maybe if the politicians got together and took a good cut in pay,there would be lots to go around for a long time.
A solution to our problems with the seniors and their pensions which would fit the plans of the present government in Ottawa would be to fit all recipients of
OAS with ankle bracelets by which we could monitor them and keep them out of every casino . They would then have all the funds needed for a reasonable life
any the money which they would spent for food etc would contribute to the real
wealth of the nation.
You keep the pensioners out of casinos, the casinos go broke, the government loses all those tax dollars the casinos pay and that they need to give to the pensiones.
That makes sense becasue …
Priorities, priorities, priorities!
It is much more important to give millions to corporations so they can make record profits and move out of the country than to use those resources to let people retire at a decent age. This is the Harper Government not the Government of Canada endorsed by the great Brian Mulroney. How could this be wrong? You people knew Harper wanted a majority and now you know why… so he could do what he wants to do. All is good for Harper and his band of dictators, does anyone else matter?
Everyone seems to have missed the reason behind all of it. As the Baby-Boomers age and begin to start collecting, there arent enough people in the next generations to pay for them. Good job on the Conservatives to start proposing changes. Very soon, there will be more people drawing from the government than there will be paying into it.
Think about it. The baby boomers were the reason there was a huge creation of schools through the 60′s and then housing in the 70′s. The stock market boom through the 90′s — all Baby boomers. What do you think will happen to the stock market as these baby boomers start retiring (this year they hit 65). The volatility in the market is not done.
Makes one think doesnt it?
These baby boomers are staring to die off and leaving their money to the next generation. What is this new generation going to do with all this money?
So what happens to those of us that are just a couple of years behind the baby boomers. Do we fall through the cracks and end up with nothing?
Now I see why the insistence on getting rid of the Gun Registry…so we could waste more money on the Internet registry! Eureka! And top is off with paying for it off the backs of our seniors. Beautiful!
STOP HARPER!!