[Canadian_Mind]

Lemmy, I'm not quite getting what you are talking about. Could you elaborate, please?

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I don't think raising the age is the solution. I'd rather gear eligibility to income. The CPP isn't going to do anything for me. It's not enough money to make much of an impact on my welfare when I retire. I've saved for my own retirement. I'd be okay with the government giving that money to the seniors who really need it. Maybe just give my family enough to plant me when I drop.

It's OAS that Harper wants to raise to 67. And that is geared to income. No OAS after 50k. I could see lowering the earnings amount before it's clawed back - it's supposed to keep people out of abject poverty, is my understanding. Also, there are movements afoot to lower the time needed in Canada for eligibility to 30 years - don't go there. OAS should only be for people who have spent a long time in Canada.

CPP we all pay into, (if we work) so we should all be entitled to it. You don't want it, donate it to charity.

[Lemmy]

I'm saying that the CPP is chump-change anyway. Those of us with pensions and RRSPs don't need it, why not give it to those who do? Base payouts on need rather than age. I know that's not an ideal solution, but it seems better than making some poor buggar who's swung a hammer, mop or paint-brush for 45 years have to swing it another 2 years before he gets to relax a bit.

[martin14]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Lemmy, I'm not quite getting what you are talking about. Could you elaborate, please?

I think he wants to make CPP dependent on income, that would drop some people
out of the system.

Very dangerous to take away the universality of CPP.

[Lemmy]

martin14 martin14:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Lemmy, I'm not quite getting what you are talking about. Could you elaborate, please?

I think he wants to make CPP dependent on income, that would drop some people
out of the system.

Very dangerous to take away the universality of CPP.

Yeah, it'd need some thought. I haven't even sold myself on my idea yet.

[andyt]

CPP is in good shape. If needed, raise the rates to make sure there's no shortfall. But people pay into it, they should be able to collect.

OAS - just lower the income amount where it's clawed back. Say from 50k to 30k. Keeps people out of the poorhouse, but doesn't provide a cushy retirement either. OAS is a form of welfare.

[Lemmy]

Yeah, I get that, andy, I'm just thinking out loud about how we could change things up some. It'd be nice if poor people didn't have to work right up to the day before they croak.

[andyt]

Total agreement. So keep OAS where it is, just lower the income where it gets clawed back. Keep CPP self funding. We should also probably improve funding for people who can't work before age 65 - if you have no savings that can be a very meager existence with lots of expenses.

I should be an economist, what do you think? 'Course then I'd be making posts insulting myself, that can't be good.

[andyt]

$1:

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.
But as a slice of gross domestic product, or the size of the economy, OAS remains tiny. It will only increase from the current 1.8 per cent to 2.5 per cent in 20 years. Even when the Guaranteed Income Supplement is included, both programs will cost a total of 3.2 per cent of GDP in 2030.
C.D. Howe president Bill Robson, who has done extensive research on the pension issue, says OAS does not represent a "huge affordability problem."

$1:

Tyler Meredith of the Institute for Research on Public Policy disagrees that increasing the age of eligibility is the best way of reforming the system, saying it would hurt those most in need of the benefits.
The government could always increase the clawback of OAS benefits for more affluent retirees, or offer a bonus for working longer, as was done with the Canada Pension Plan. Both would result in savings for the government.
"Raising the retirement age is probably the most blunt instrument the government has to deal with the issue," he said, "because it's going to significantly affect individuals of low and modest income who rely on these benefits.
"Canada has essentially done away with seniors poverty thanks to the creation of GIS and OAS over the last 30 and 40 years."

[Caelon]

Taking away CPP would be very dangerous politically as it has been a payroll tax. Employer and employee have submitted payments based on earned income to the variable annual maximum. OAS is a 'gift' or income supplement for seniors with the clawback starting at about $67,000 achieving 100% clawback if you made over roughly $120,000. (did not bother to look up the current mins and max as it varies with annual inflation numbers).

Lemmy you may feel that CPP is insignificant , but for many people $12,000 per year would make a major difference in their retirement plans. For a husband and wife if they both worked and achieved the highest levels of CPP plus were eligible for OAS they would have a combined income of about $35,000 at age 65. This is in addition to whatever they would get through employer pension plans, RSP's or other investments.

The one sacred cow we have had is universality of government programs. For seniors the federal programs of OAS and the income suppliment have an income test, not CPP. Moving the starting age of OAS from 65 to 67, as we are seeing in the press, may be politically difficult to implement. Andyt's solution of lowering the clawback levels would be easier to slip through.

Currently OAS is indexed to inflation so even removing the indexing would assist over time in reducing the liability. Lowering the start of the clawback to say $60,000 would also significantly reduce the liability.

When you talk to people over 60 they really feel they are entitiled to every last cent of both CPP and OAS. Some are very bitter about the clawback of OAS. Still an individual making $67,000 or more in retirement would not be considered 'poor'. And OAS was only meant to be a supplement for seniors not a retirement plan or a right. Playing with the clawback level would be a lot less sensitive. Now if Harper could only convince the NDP to propose it then the Conservatives can avoid the negative flack.

[Freakinoldguy]

Here's a question for all the retired miltiary types or economist types.

If I can't draw my OAS pension till I'm 67 does that mean that the corresponding deduction from my military pension doesn't take effect till then and does this in any way shape or form change the fact that i'm drawing a reduced CPP pension because of the age 65 caveat that was included with reduction of our military pensions along with the OAS pension?

[Canadian_Mind]

Run on question man. Could you break it down into bite-sized chunks?

[Caelon]

Freakinoldguy just wants to know if his military pension would be changed if the rules on OAS change or is he being screwed once again. When it comes to taking care our members in the armed forces I would suggest it is even worse. You are totally f.....

[Caelon]

repeat

[Freakinoldguy]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Run on question man. Could you break it down into bite-sized chunks?

Okay I'll try again.

It is recommended that retired Military members draw their CPP at age 60 rather than wait till age 65 because what happens at age 65 is that you start getting OAS and CPP.

Due to the Government saying that CPP and the Military pension are the same pension, despite the fact we paid both seperately, we lose a portion of our military pension when we start drawing OAP and CPP at age 65.

So I guess the question is. Are we going to lose money when we turn 65 because of the Military CPP pension fuckup without getting the corresponding offset because of the Old Age Pension when they reduce our military pension?

It seems to me we'd have two years of reduced pension because they raised the age to age 67.