Share
Email this to your friends.
Feedback
We'd love to hear your opinion. Your comments won't be posted on the website.
Read More
Hasty Conservative EI Changes Underline Need for Greater Clarity »
May 24, 2012
OTTAWA— Liberal Human Resources & Skills Development and Labour critic Rodger Cuzner made the following [...]
spRED Tour: Mark Eyking in Southern Ontario »
May 24, 2012
Sydney-Victoria MP Mark Eyking toured various communities in southern Ontario as part of Liberals’ spRED [...]
Liberals Call for Fair By-election in Etobicoke Centre »
May 24, 2012
OTTAWA— Former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj today challenged Prime Minister Harper to call a by-election [...]
As a younger member of the Baby Boomer generation (the group refered to as Generation Jones), I am dismayed that once again, we will come up left behind!
Born in the early 1960s, we graduated from high school in the late 70′s only to find no job opportunities and ridiculously high interest rates. We then struggled to go back to school to bide time until jobs became available. Finally throughout the 80′s we got our first jobs only to be the first ones out the door in the 1990′s when downsizing came. Of course these jobs had no pension plans and if they did, it was before vesting of pensions.
In the dot.com era, we couldn’t get new jobs (most of us had never seen a computer since we were part of the group that were born to black and white televisions and the walkmans and videos were after our time).
No jobs means that we went through our thirties barely working and definitely not in a position to pay off our mortgages (if we could get them) and save anything substantial for retirement.
Interestingly, it was not so long ago that the facts came out that there were more people born in Canada in 1961 than any other year. We were lost in the shadows of our older brothers and sisters.
So, now here again, the present government is promising no changes to the OAS until 2020… when we will be in our late 50s. We are also part of the sandwich generation (our parents are retired and in their 70s and 80s and we are still supporting our old teens and young adult children.
Finally, in the last 5-10 years, we are starting to make a decent living – although we now have less than 20 years to retirement!
I am frustrated that no one has seen us… And I am absolutely frightened that I will be in the my late 50s in 2020. It would be nice to have a party with that takes the position of recognizing that not all Baby Boomers are ‘well off’ and that Generation Jones (born in the early 60s) are suffering tremendously.
We will be the next seniors living in poverty! We not only face no time to save but we will be the ones who get to retire for the first time to a reduced OAS!
The comment by Corey D. is well said and right on! I graduated from university in the early sixties and I have had an easy walk through life. OTHERS have had it much easier than myself – lots of two income families to begin with. I don’t like paying taxes but I understand why it is only fair.
I would propose some changes to the OAS that I think the LPC should be discussing and that we all have some say in. Those changes may look like:
• Cut off any OAS payment to anyone with pension earning over $45,000, or gradually reduce it to 0 by $55,000
• Increase the amount payable to lower incomes on a graduating scale that matches the scale of reduction of the top OAS receivers.
• Plan this to affect all of the pensioners earning over $60,000 immediately, ie stop or reduce it over 5 years starting now.
• Plan for a replacement to the OAS for all except those most in need, ie ones who can not save for pensions because of very low lifetime incomes, and replace it with more opportunity for tax free contributions by everyone say with an affective age of 30 now.
• When all pensioners are brought up to above the poverty line, then we can consider saving money to pay down debt, not buy jets.
My premise is that we all have need of lower wage earners to do the jobs that must be done and that we do not do ourselves and that OAS was designed with the intention of supporting those valued members of society when they retire. It was not designed to give higher income pensioners who had higher lifetime incomes more opportunity to live better, which is like taking from the poor to give to the rich.
I have worked for 30 years at present, 5 years in private sector (with no pension, only CPP contributions) 12 years were with the government, and the remaining years self-employed by choice and due to family requirements. I put as much as I can into RRSPS however I have been paying a great deal toward my children’s education as the government has deemed we make too much money (not sure where we are hiding it) and my children were never eligible for student loans as a result. I had intended to stop working regularly by the time I am 60 – a few years away- and had planned based on my current (somewhat dismal, still recovering) RRSP, CPP and hopefully OAS to be able to maintain some semblance of independance and quality of life in the years to come. Any change to these plans would drastically affect my hopes. We can sustain the dignity of all Canadians, if we invest in our children by reducing education cost so they can get out of school and begin contributing without huge debt hanging over their heads for decades, redirect our interests to investing in the citizens of this country who pay for the services received and stop subsidizing corporations who have proven they have only their own interests at heart,stop useless and wasteful expenditures by government (it is called PUBLIC SERVICE for a reason you people on Parliament Hill) and ensuring all citizens are giving a fair and equal treatment. Should any one get a free ride, not by a long shot but those who really need help can be helped if we join together and insist that government focus on the important things that matter to THIS COUNTRY and not the issues or demands of other countries.
• Perhaps we should be reassuring Canadians that we will reverse much of what the conservatives do where possible
• Then suggest the places which can not be reversed, like Jets when they have been delivered or paid for
• Like jails that have been built
• Like pipelines that have been built
• Like the debt infrastructure it is building like jets and jails, that will require huge sums of taxes to maintain without valid reason.
• Then the things that will be reversed or changed OAS, corporation taxation, healthcare.
• After that, repeatedly, list policy, somewhat detailed, so that all will be comfortable with what we are about and will do
• Also so anything that the other may do or announce we can say it was our plan and that we can support it to some degree.
• When Harper announces something like OAS he is just baiting us and the public, controlling our thoughts and time to suit himself.
• When Harper is done he will blame us for making a big issue over some small plan that may even fix minor problems with OAS and the claim that like everything the conservatives want to do that the opposition blows out of perspective or gets all wrong.
• Harper wants us to react just as we have, better to have said in parliament, we agree that some spending has to be cut, that we do not think that cutting OAS is an area that LPC would as a party follow, but that if Harper planned to improve the OAS, tweaking it to benefit the needy and adjusting it to cut out any abuses would be the LPC way. The opposition has to lead the majority government where it wants it to go, not get at logger heads with it. We have to make the public think and see that we are for them as much as possible, not just blustering about all the bad things that are happening, especially when we do not even know what the bad thing may or may not be.
• We have to be clever, not argumentative, appear supportive, while listing the ways to alter the things we can not stop anyway, but making the LPC way seem better.
• Many think Jets and a jails are not so bad so we have to say how we would balance these items, to fulfil our worldly obligations, by spending money for emergency help, for retaking our role as peacekeepers, not aggressors, by helping those who turn to crime before they become criminals, by removing them from jails and putting them in areas where their lockup will not encourage them to more crime but train them and treat them. Put first time offenders into school, college, trades, it would not cost any more then putting them in jail. Have monitors live with them 24/7 until they are new useful citizens, who are appreciatied.
• It is time to stop reacting, all are tired of this type of politics. And where possible make others react to us. Pick things that will get the public attention, like MLA pensions, promise to make those exactly the same as everyone else, CPP, after all our MLA are supposed to be better financial managers, so they can manage their own retirement and do not need big handouts from the taxpayer, this alone is fair and would almost win an election on it’s own.
I am in general agreement with Chantel Hebert’s recent column on this topic–I think opposition parties are being led on a path of over-reaction so that the Tories can play to their base and later say “that wasn’t the disaster the lefties predicted”.
I do agree that the most dispacable part of this is that the discussion was started while the PM was grandstanding at an event outside the country, placed in a position of strength based largely upon Liberal banking policies from previous years, many of which he opposed.
I think that the energy being put into this issue by the Liberal caucus and party would be better directed into areas around the downsizing-to-irrelevancy of the federal government, sustainable resource development, and, if a single issue is desired, the effect that ideology-driven policy and patronage are having on government services like SAR as in the tragic events in Labrador this week.
How many helicopters (with clearly defined missions) are represented by a fantasy-land fighter with none?
I write as a Liberal party member and senior (with two adult children with considerable student debt and considerably reduced lifetime income opportunities)
OAS expenditures are projected to increase from 2.4 % GDP in 2010 to 3.1% GDP in 2030. (The cash value increase from $36 billion (in 2010 dollars) to $108 billion (in 2030 dollars assuming inflation of 2.7% after 2015). Almost half of the projected increase is change in the value of the dollar.
The Conservatives are trying to create a wedge issue that will appeal to their base. In the process the Conservatives are undermining Consumer Confidence, and consumer spending. Cynical and deceitful of a government that pretends to being pro business.
The Conservatives should rethink their concept of fiscal responsibility. Almost 50% of combined Government Deficit is due to reduced combined Government Revenues. Below is the data:
Year 2006
. . combined Government Revenue 40.7 %GDP
. . combined Government Spending 39.1 %GDP
. . Revenue minus Spending: 1.6% GDP (Surplus)
Year 2010
. . combined Government Revenue 38.3 %GDP
. . combined Government Spending 43.5 %GDP
. . Revenue minus Spending -4.5% GDP (Deficit)
Therefore, from 2006 to 2010; combined Government Revenue has decreased by -2.4 %GDP (despite small real GDP growth of 3.3 % over the period). Decreased Government Revenue accounts for almost HALF the combined government deficit of -4.5 %GDP. Tax cuts are not creating jobs. The government should be investing in those things really do stimulate consumer spending … infrastructure and family services.
You seem to have a good handle on the numbers James.
What effect would raising the HST by 1 or 2 percent have on this problem.
I have always thought that having tax increases go into general revenue makes it harder for people to understand where their tax dollars are going.
I think it would be quite powerful to be able to say (for example) that by raising HST by 1% we wouldn’t have to raise the age at which we get OAS. The Cons appear to be very susceptible to pressure on this issue! This is because seniors vote! Too bad the young and the less well off are more unlikely to.
Why can’t all of the taxes that we pay go into separate envelopes so that people can better understand where their taxes go.
With the power of computers and the internet, this would not be the problem it might have been a few years ago. All government expenditures could be posted on an ongoing basis.
OAS – the government & some people’s attitudes, (Harper and his band of ungrateful.)
• That now as I come to retire, I am worthless and now that my contributions to society in the workforce is over, I am to be treated like a bum getting in the way of balanced budgets.
• That all the taxes I paid, up to 50% of my income, when all is accounted for, and that I thought were providing not only some income for my old age but for others who earned even less, but fulfilled positions many did not want, are now a burden.
• That the younger people who may support OAS cuts are belittling my contributions that provided them with opportunity, higher salaries, and better standards of living then I enjoyed while I was improving their lifestyle.
It is outrageous, to pick on the most vulnerable and tax the least vulnerable less. Where corporations that benefited from my labour, now receive tax breaks, and my hard earned benefits are cut so that I live in poverty, while the wealthiest of these give them selves huge income increases, knowing the poor are paying for it. Knowing that it is the same people that they are cheating, are the ones who made them rich.
Is this what our society has come to? If so I have wasted my life. I have worked toward a better society and now find it is a society that measures everything in terms of greed and money, the elder are in the way, environment is only a obstruction to progress and money, clean water, rivers and oceans only get in the way of more profit, and clean air is only for those who want to go outdoors, not important to the corporatism who think that inside, watching the money grow is the only thing that has real value.
All, even our own politicians see money, re election, extravagant pension plans and expense accounts, as more important then anything I mentioned above. I have not heard one even once say it is time to take less, be fair, and treat their benefactors, the lowly taxpayer and minimum wage earner, with some of what is due, respect and reward for doing the jobs many did not want to do. Many mothers worked their whole lives nurturing us, now to be told that they do not deserve more OAS but less.
I thought, naively, that as I read history, that we were becoming better, but I see the only better we have become is better at using others, greed and callowness.
And do not get me wrong, I can see that some of the higher pension earners, at 68000 could do with less, but only if the lower ones receive more.
Someone said, “Of course, not all seniors will be in a position to continue punching a clock, which is where politics enters the picture. Who would be most affected if the federal government raises the retirement age? Workers in manual labour or manufacturing jobs which become more difficult to perform as one gets older, as well as lower-wage Canadians who are unable to save for retirement. In other words, the voter bases of the NDP.” IMV, this should be the Liberal voter base!
A lot of poor people are lifted out of poverty when their OAS starts at age 65. Now the suggestion is to make it 67. In the meantime people with incomes of $65,000 per year are getting the full OAS. Something’s not right.
Hi. I feel that our Prime Minister is a coward. He didn’t have the gumption to mention this issue (OAP) prior to the election (it would have killed him at the poles) and he waits until he is out of the Country to make known his real intentions. Disgusting but not surprising as this is how he works.
The government’s suggested plan to reduce access to the OAS by increasing the age of entitlement is Pistol Pete politics. The G&M recently reported on some reputable actuarial assessments that put a lie to the PM’s patronizing and tendentious sermon from the Mount:Davos. As a former public servant who worked hard to serve up cogent and sustainable public policy prescriptions to various federal Cabinets, & represented Canada internationally, I know that this kind of tripe would have been laughed out of town – and never would have made it into a Cabinet Submission – in recent times or during minority governments. Please hold the PM accountable to talk, and practice, sense and fairness – not wedge politics.
I’d caution against going to the wall to urge preservation of the pension status quo. Anyone who does the math knows there’s an impending huge cost to maintain it and something’s going to have to be done. Let’s therefore see the details of what the Conservatives are proposing (which might not be too bad) before we slam them. Premature histrionics over as yet untabled pension changes will only enable the Conservatives to brand our party as economically irresponsible, which will be damaging.
I’m writing this as a Liberal and a senior.
If I heard both the original proposal and Bob Rae’s speech correctly, it’s not CPP eligibility so much as OAS eligibility that is being pushed off 2 years. Problem is, both of these are easily mistaken one for the other and even the government is not overly clear about it. CPP is the program that every Canadian pays into and is eligible to receive a payout from. OAS is an income supplement for elderly below a threshold earnings level (I think, but could be wrong, about $30K per year – something that as Mr. Rae pointed out was way below the salary of every member of the house).
If I understood Mr. Harper, he’s talking about raising OAS eligibility. Does that mean that eligible seniors start collecting CPP at 65 then get OAS at 67? Or does it mean that seniors who would need OAS must work until 67 and not be able to collect CPP until then because they are working the extra 2 years to qualify for OAS?
This is some good stuff from our Honourable leader. Now, in Mr. Rae’s speech, he alluded to a public pension plan. Is this the same as the proposal that Mr. Ignatieff unveiled a year ago about allowing people to contribute directly to their CPP to increase their benefit? Or did I get that wrong? The Globe and Mail is notably silent about Mr. Rae’s speech. No wonder people think that the Liberals don’t have a stand or a position.
Great speech again and as usual. I would strongly suggest that each and every time there is a webcast/video of this nature that it be advertised on Twitter, Facebook etc several times a day. Since anyone can come into this site it is essential that all Canadians have the opportunity to see and hear the Liberal viewpoints.
Thank you for providing CC but it was difficult to read because it was posted over top of the title of the Bill etc Heading. But, I am indeed grateful for small “mercies”.
Keep up the pressure and some day soon, I hope, all Canadians will begin to realize that Harper is truly on the path to destroying our country and its historic democracy.