Is Delaying The Age Canadians Receive OAS A Good Idea?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/pension-cuts-wont-impact-canadians-nearing-retirement-age-pmo-says-138214239.html

Or will it cost the Cons the next election if they push it through?

Ottawa estimates the cost of OAS will rise from $36 billion in 2010 to $108 billion in 2030, while the number of taxpayers for every senior declines from four-to-one to two-to-one.

Something does have to be done though.

Now there's talk about increasing eligibility one month at a time for a bit.

Harper is smart in his approach with our aboriginals, as their demographic could save our asses in the future.

JTF, I don't understand the comment regarding aboriginals. Can you explain?

Regarding 36B in 2010 to 108B in 2030 is this another estimate similar to their estimate of the cost of 200 Million for a gun registry?

I have no interest in quotes like that! It means nothing!

If the government knows these numbers so far ahead, then their job is to deal with it.

If you look at revenues over the years, you will notice that they increase every year , so you can plan for the expenditures!

We don't see what the government is planning to sock more money into their own pensions, but we do know that they have legislated a guaranteed 10% investment increase that is taken right out of operating revenues.

10% seems to be a very low amount, when you check out the historical % of appx 2.5%! Horrible , government padding their own pockets!

Canada has mismanaged the pension plan just as they have EI. If the pension plan had been managed properly there would be revenue available to take the threat away. With a rapidly ageing population, and our young not keeping pace, things could be disastrous.

The aboriginal and immigration has to be looked at as the major driver of growth in Canada.

Canada will look very different in 2112.

As the world's population is aging, we are fortunate that our aboriginal population is increasing by historic numbers (20.1% from 2001 to 2006).

Now...we must assure that this demographic becomes well educated and full participants in society.

Changes to the Indian Act are required...changes similar to the Wheat Board.

The question is "Is delaying OAS a good idea".
People have been paying for other peoples pension for 25, 30, 35, or even 40 years.
Depending when they started working.
And now when their bodies are wearing out, the government wants them to keep on working for another 2 years.
I think Mr. Harper has just provided thew opposition with the wedge they need to send the Cons to a stunning defeat in the next election!
If he is looking for ways of saving money, he should look in other places-like cutting benefits to people who are not contributing to society in the first place.

It is good that the aboriginal demographic is growing disproportionally to the rest of Canada but that group is small (approx. 1.3 million) and not sustainable. Once the average aboriginal becomes a mainstream Canadian their birthrate is likely to drop significantly.

Much more is needed to overcome the pension deficit.

This is NOT a partisan issue outsider. No matter who was in power today the problem would still exist.

This issue was NOT caused by seniors.
Why make the people who are least able to defend themselves pay for a problem they did not cause.
If the government wants to save some money, they better look somewhere else.
Because these seniors still have the right to vote !

Are you arguing for arguments sake? No one in the sandbox has suggested this should fall on seniors alone to solve.

Everyone, including seniors, are on the hook to solve the problem. I suspect I'm much closer to this issue as I will be retiring soon.

As to the notion of the "government" looking somewhere else, where do you suggest?

Do we (the government) raise taxes? Lot's of votes at risk there too. Do we reduce the bureaucracy? Plenty o' votes there also.

Save the indignance here outsider. Let try to discuss this in a manner that promotes debate.

Most everyone affected by cuts has a right to vote...

There are many other areas that cuts could be made...welfare would be 1st on my list! Able bodied individuals should be working FT.

Totally. Who do the feds pay welfare to?

Manitoba gets so many transfer payments from the feds, who knows how much goes to welfare. I am sure many cuts could be made before pensions.

Good point. Are welfare recipients a municipal responsibility or provincial? I know at one time Winnipeg City paid welfare recipients from its tax rolls. I believe that may have changed.

Note: there are no pension cuts on the table. Only a discussion about delaying the retirement date to 67.

grumpy old man wrote:
Note: there are no pension cuts on the table. Only a discussion about delaying the retirement date to 67.

I am disappointed you don't get it.
Lets assume OAS is $550/month. That is $6,600 per year.
If a person can not receive OAS until he is 67 then he is out $6,600 times 2 or $13,200 over 2 years.
How is he supposed to make up that 13 grand. Not everyone is lucky enough to work at a $50k/year job.
If all seniors are supposed to work 2 more years, where are they
supposed to work? McDonalds and Wal-mart only need so many employees.
If the Cons are serious about wanting to save money on pensions, they should start with cutting the political pensions in half first.

You're bound and determined to politicise this eh?

I don't think you've really thought this through.

The folks asked to work longer would be expected to continue working where they are at 65.

One of the most significant problems Canadian employers are facing is the loss of the baby boomers and not enough Canadians coming along to fill the void.

Many Canadians have already said they don't want to retire at 65 and resent being forced into retirement. That means that at least some Canadians want to work later.

Pensions today can be taken early, at penalty, AND late, earning a premium. The penalty is 1/2% a month.


I'm all for cutting the political pensions in half first. Too bad the liberals weren't in power. Canadians' pensions would not be on the table at all. Wait a minute! That's politicising the discussion isn't it? My bad...

grumpy old man wrote:

Canada will look very different in 2112.

Canada will only exist in history books in 2112.

In the early 90's I remember having many conversations about the subject of OAS and the aging of the baby boomers.

At that time my friends and I were prepared for the fact that OAS and CPP would not exist when I entered my 60's. I still believe this to be true, and watching what's going on now makes me think this is the beginning of the end.

So when you ask the question "Is delaying the age Canucks receive OAS a good idea."

I say no it is not a good idea.

A good idea would have been for the past four PM's to ensure that the program was properly managed and funded. An other good idea would have everyone contribute to their own private retirement fund.

I think postponing OAS to 67 or later is a very good idea, because generally people are in better condition, living longer and actually wanting to feel more useful by working longer.

When old age pensions came about 40 years ago, people were dying 10 years sooner.

Perhaps the OAS should start at 72?

grumpy old man wrote:You're bound and determined to politicise this eh?
..

I don't have that power.
But Mr. Harper does.
I predict the number of voters in the next Federal election will increase dramatically if Mr. Harper insists on going through with increasing the age at which hard-working Canadians can draw OAS.

Outsider, by the time the next election shows up, Harper will have passed legislation outlawing all opposition parties! lol

I think the qualifying age may be raised by a month at a time. That won't piss anybody off I suggest.

FACT: We are living longer



FACT: There will be fewer taxpayers in the future as the baby boomers move to the "retirement" stage.



So, what we are moving toward, is more people collecting OAS for a longer time and fewer people paying for it, so the other alternative is to legislate mandatory death at 75. Problem solved.



May sound kind of harsh, but at least no one can complain that they aren't getting their OAS when they turn 65.



(Written entirely for sarcastic purposes.)

Is this setting the stage to make everyone wake up and smell the coffee? I guess being a socialist means you don't read the newspaper, so you can ignore whats happening in Europe where the sense of entitlement is finally catching up resulting in massive public and probably personal debt.



Canada is far from a third world country. People are not starving on the streets. We have clean water. We are not ravaged by war. Maybe, just maybe, we should all buck up and get to work, keep your personal debt down, and don't expect someone else to pay for your ride, especially the government, cause guess where they get their money from?



I am so tired of the left wing rhetoric of making the rich pay and corporate greed. If you want to sit on your a$$, then don't expect to get the big bucks and all the bling that goes with it.

With proper planning and proper deductions from those that are working, the government can plan for retirement funds being available for those who have contributed !

The real problem is the government retirement funds and the way the government figures things out for everyone except themselves!