Richard White
Senior Member
This is why OAS, GIS and CPP need to be converted to a UBI inclusive of a minimum income level for qualifying.
|
|
|
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
This is why OAS, GIS and CPP need to be converted to a UBI inclusive of a minimum income level for qualifying.
kEiThZ
Superstar
OAS + GIS. I think they need to be transformed into some kind of basic income guarantee that keeps seniors out of poverty. Giving OAS to seniors making more than the median wage is patently absurd. Meanwhile GIS is actually rather meagre.
CPP is based on contribution. I wouldn't include it. I do think CPP premiums need to be increased so that the average working person should get a CPP that puts them above the poverty line and so they don't need GIS. My mother worked for 26 years in Canada as a bank clerk, making well above minimum wage and still qualifies for a little bit of GIS. That shouldn't have happened at all.
The maximum CPP you can get is $17500/yr I believe. That max is below the rural Low Income Cut Off, let alone the large city LICO. CPP clearly needs to be reformed to at least ensure more working people get above LICO for where they live to reduce GIS liabilities.
Northern Light
Superstar
It seems like lots of money.
They were wrong. The problem w/the scheme to raise the age was that:
1) They didn't raise the age of CPP or the Senior Age and Pension Credits at the same time, so the exercise seemed punitive rather than thoughtful.
2) They didn't reinvest any of the savings in any program for seniors, low income or otherwise, or for any other income transfer or important project. So, again, it same off as pain with no gain.
Raise the age, reivinvest the savings, clearly tie to the two in the public consciousness.
Reset the age for all retirement related programs to more accurately reflect today's life expectancy.
When CPP was created (1966) the average age of death was 72,. So you were expected to die within 7 years of getting a pension. Today that number is 82, so the pension has to last 17 years instead of 7.
Meanwhile, the average age at which people pay in to the program, full-time has increased, as the majority of workers in 1966, began paying in at ~age 16, when dropped out of High School, or at 18, if they finished HS.
Today the majority of the population is doing at least 2 years of post-secondary, delaying full-time pay-in to age 20 or beyond.
A three-part issue.
1) Reforming the Age for all retirement related programs.
2) Reforing OAS to target better target retirees at or below the middle income level; using at least 50% of savings from a greater clawback to better support low-income retirees.
3) Addressing those who cannot work in their mid 60s or earlier, adversely affected by a bump in retirement age; by funding the Federal Disability Benefit they passed into law last year, but have yet to enact.
The latter item could be medium and long term funded by the additional income and sales tax revenues generated by delaying the retirement age, as well, if you reinvest in a higher CPP benefit w/the age savings, fewer seniors will require OAS/GIS providing financial support for a more generous program for those who do.
Because those savings would be immediate, some other budget cut or tax hike would likely be needed in the short term.
kEiThZ
Superstar
CPP isn't the problem. It's at least run on an actuarially sound basis and collects enough to fund itself. Whether that payout is adequate is another question.
The problem is OAS, which is a liability, funded from general revenue, and which is paid out with far too little discrimination on need. And is now well beyond whatever original purpose it had.
The next government will have to make cuts similar to the Chretien era in the 90s. And I sincerely hope they start with OAS reform. We'll see whether they start here or suck up to seniors like this government did.
kEiThZ
Superstar
By the way, the government clearly recognizes they have an image issue with younger generations. They are starting to talk about "generational fairness" too. Unfortunately, their policies don't match that language.
www.pm.gc.ca
Fairness for every generation
One of the biggest pressures on young people right now is housing. This is particularly true for renters – where it feels like the deck is stacked against them. They are facing skyrocketing rents, renovictions, unfair competition, and a lack of housing options. While we’ve taken bold action to...
kEiThZ
Superstar
You're an upper middle class person who hasn't moved in decades. You should talk to new immigrants or military families who can't even find a family physician.
Some of this is, of course, the fault of the provincial governments who have underfunded public healthcare. But some of this is also the fault of this government's perpetual ADD where they create new social programs before fixing current programs. No wonder the provinces are simply stating to balk at new federal funding (which create new liabilities for them).
Northern Light
Superstar
In light of our recent discussions on OAS; the idea of raising the age to 67 is raised in The Star again today by columnist David Olive:
www.thestar.com
He argues cogently that the top marginal income tax rate and the top corporate tax are already above those in the U.S. and at or near their limits. (which is not to say some frivolous deductions/credits couldn't be done away with)
As such he notes the value of aligning OAS with Social Security in the U.S.which pays at 67. (though the U.S. fund is not solvent in the near term, so that age may rise further)
***
He also argues for raising the Federal HST back to 7%, a move that would raise ~28B annualized in 2025, vs the current (projected) deficit of ~40B, The two moves combined would likely bring balance in the near term and possibly even a modest surplus.
David Olive: Two wildly unpopular yet effective ways to balance the books
If you have some cognac handy, reach for it now, David Olive writes.
www.thestar.com
He argues cogently that the top marginal income tax rate and the top corporate tax are already above those in the U.S. and at or near their limits. (which is not to say some frivolous deductions/credits couldn't be done away with)
As such he notes the value of aligning OAS with Social Security in the U.S.which pays at 67. (though the U.S. fund is not solvent in the near term, so that age may rise further)
***
He also argues for raising the Federal HST back to 7%, a move that would raise ~28B annualized in 2025, vs the current (projected) deficit of ~40B, The two moves combined would likely bring balance in the near term and possibly even a modest surplus.
Richard White
Senior Member
In light of our recent discussions on OAS; the idea of raising the age to 67 is raised in The Star again today by columnist David Olive:
David Olive: Two wildly unpopular yet effective ways to balance the books
If you have some cognac handy, reach for it now, David Olive writes.
He argues cogently that the top marginal income tax rate and the top corporate tax are already above those in the U.S. and at or near their limits. (which is not to say some frivolous deductions/credits couldn't be done away with)
As such he notes the value of aligning OAS with Social Security in the U.S.which pays at 67. (though the U.S. fund is not solvent in the near term, so that age may rise further)
***
He also argues for raising the Federal HST back to 7%, a move that would raise ~28B annualized in 2025, vs the current (projected) deficit of ~40B, The two moves combined would likely bring balance in the near term and possibly even a modest surplus.
To hell with 7%
What we need is a 27% VAT.
Northern Light
Superstar
The highest in the world?
One that would create a vast black market economy?
Don't think so.
Highest VAT is currently 25%; which would clearly not be viable in Canada politically, or practically.
I don't have any issue w/arguing for higher; but keep in my mind 7% federally plus the PST component is 15% in Ontario, but will be 17% in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
I suspect 17% is tolerable but that's probably people's limit, and if Ontario went that high it would be raising the PST component to match the eastern provinces.
kEiThZ
Superstar
In light of our recent discussions on OAS; the idea of raising the age to 67 is raised in The Star again today by columnist David Olive:
He argues cogently that the top marginal income tax rate and the top corporate tax are already above those in the U.S. and at or near their limits. (which is not to say some frivolous deductions/credits couldn't be done away with)David Olive: Two wildly unpopular yet effective ways to balance the books
If you have some cognac handy, reach for it now, David Olive writes.
As such he notes the value of aligning OAS with Social Security in the U.S.which pays at 67. (though the U.S. fund is not solvent in the near term, so that age may rise further)
People are forgetting the goal of such a change. Reducing the cost of and stopping the growth of OAS. Reversing the threshold age change is one way. But, keeping in mind that overarching goal, there's more than one way to do this. We'll see what gets picked. But I'd argue they should simply replace OAS and GIS.
Zero chance of that happening. At this point, it's pretty clear the Liberals will not do a single policy that is unpopular. They are promising billions in new spending hoping to avoid the boot. And (I do think) they are hoping that if they lose, the CPC will be stuck with a whole bunch of bad and unpopular choices. And just like how Harper limited federal revenue (and thus spending) with an HST cut, the LPC is hoping to limit future austerity from the CPC by avoiding unpopular tax increases. It's the inverse of "Starve the beast." Really hard for the CPC to offer large tax cuts if they have to tackle a large deficit. A 2% HST hike would automatically become a target for the CPC next election. Maybe the LPC will do this if they are re-elected.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
So…. Trudeau wants to tax my carbon AND facilitate the scouring of farm land to build highways?
www.thestar.com
In victory for Doug Ford, Ontario and Ottawa strike Highway 413 deal on environment
A major roadblock has been cleared in the construction of the proposed Highway 413 from Milton to Vaughan.
www.thestar.com
kEiThZ
Superstar
So…. Trudeau wants to tax my carbon AND facilitate the scouring of farm land to build highways?
In victory for Doug Ford, Ontario and Ottawa strike Highway 413 deal on environment
A major roadblock has been cleared in the construction of the proposed Highway 413 from Milton to Vaughan.
They had to. Court rulings made it clear that the federal government didn't have the right to block the highway.
And don't you get a cheque back for the carbon taxes you pay?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I’d rather Trudeau keep the cheque and use the carbon tax to build better transit and to invest in other carbon-reducing environmental initiatives. As it is, I have no incentive to use less carbon since I’ll get the money from Trudeau anyway. How can a revenue neutral tax change behaviour?
kEiThZ
Superstar
Price signal. Your post kinda proves it. You only thought of the prices. You didn't think of the rebate.
That would make it a tax increase for everybody. The rebate is what this idea marginally palatable to begin with. And even even, it's clearly struggling.
afransen
Senior Member
You get the same cheque no matter what. You keep any money you don't spend on fuel to spend on literally anything else. You can't be serious.