[Gunnair]

Andy issues with pension reform come from his dog raising experience. Just like his parenting advice.

[eureka]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

eureka eureka:

Nice collection, andy. In addition, it became Reform policy in the 1989 caucus statement written by Harper.

And?

Again, debate diguised as attacks. Bad Tories, still Reformacon etc.

Another opportunity at sensible debate squandered by petty personal agendas.

andy and eureka, don't you think that we need to re-jig the whole pension thing? Or is your time on CKA purely concentrated on stirring the shit and scoring partisan points against anybody that appears to be right of your political viewpoint?

Very tiresome, I'd love a return to reasoned debate, I'm just not sure that eureka is here for the debate.

The starting point for real debate is an agreement on facts. What andy posted and what I posted are the facts.

Debate starts with that and continues with the question of whether the ideological stand of Reform and the CPC can be justified.

I gave you two economic reports that claim that they are not: that5 the system is sustainable. I will add to that the position of the other parties in the last election that the benefits of the CPC and OAS should be increased.

Facts are not attacks and they are not partisan.

I will grant you, though, that I will attack Harper and the CPC over anything that I can find. I do not look forward to an Ayn Rand world in Canada.

[OnTheIce]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

The Liberals seem to have forgotten Paul Martin's plan to gut the OAS which had to drop. First they were for actually gutting it, now they are against even suggested minor changes.

And Paul Martin was the visionary, the financial genius. Martin wanted to raise eligibility to 67 as well.

At that time, although it was 8 years ago, Harper did oppose such change so for him to change direction now is a hypocritical at best.

[eureka]

The further point is that the ultimate ain of Harper is to get out of this altogether. He wants a strictly constructionist view of the Constitution and the federal government looking after defence, foreign affairs and not much else.

I wonder what kind of "libertarian" he would have been in the days when Ontario and Quebec carried the freight and Alberta was a poor relation living on the charity of Central Canada.

All that fuels his dream of converting Canada into a latter day Hanseatic League is oil.

[EyeBrock]

I'm waiting to hear a less agenda-ridden argument. It's obvious that with the boomers hitting retirement that we will face a fiscal challenge in funding the OAS with a shrinking workforce vs a larger pension base.

Unlike you eureka, I'm open to view points regardless of ideology. If the NDP come up with a decent plan I'll listen.

[eureka]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I'm waiting to hear a less agenda-ridden argument. It's obvious that with the boomers hitting retirement that we will face a fiscal challenge in funding the OAS with a shrinking workforce vs a larger pension base.

Unlike you eureka, I'm open to view points regardless of ideology. If the NDP come up with a decent plan I'll listen.

That statement suggests that you need to look at yourself with new eyes. How are you open when you simply reject the reports that are available that say we do not have that problem.

I do not recall the actual GDP shares but, they are something close to:

2.4% now,31.2% in the short term, 2.6% in thirty or forty years.

Bearing in mind that the chief reason for any pressure id the tax cutting of the CPC. $60 billion has been given to corporations by way of tax cuts since Harper came to office.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

eureka eureka:

Nice collection, andy. In addition, it became Reform policy in the 1989 caucus statement written by Harper.

And?

Again, debate diguised as attacks. Bad Tories, still Reformacon etc.

Another opportunity at sensible debate squandered by petty personal agendas.

andy and eureka, don't you think that we need to re-jig the whole pension thing? Or is your time on CKA purely concentrated on stirring the shit and scoring partisan points against anybody that appears to be right of your political viewpoint?

Very tiresome, I'd love a return to reasoned debate, I'm just not sure that eureka is here for the debate.

How you going to have reasoned debate when you don't read what the people you want to debate with write? It's more fun that way tho, right?

andyt andyt:

The OAS clawback starts at a ridiculously high amount - OAS is welfare, why does somebody making 70k need welfare? Lower the clawback income dramatically.

And build in more flexibility that encourages people to work longer but at the same time doesn't penalize people who can't work because of illness or other reasons. Maybe raise OAS/GAIN qualifying age (and CPP) but then allow it to kick in earlier for valid medical reasons.

While

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I'm all for OAS being refocused on the lower wage earners. I reckon I can manage on my own pension plus my military pay-out that's in a locked-in plan. Plus the Limeys will have to give me a bit of cash (it should get me a pizza a month).

Doesn't sound like much of a disagreement to me. Maybe that's what you meant by "Another opportunity at sensible debate squandered by petty personal agendas."



As for my saying that I think Harper still has a hidden agenda, are you really going to get your panties in a twist any time somebody says that? Pretty partisan of you. I think he does have that agenda. I think he's smart and disciplined enough to do it incrementally.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Andy issues with pension reform come from his dog raising experience. Just like his parenting advice.

Guess Brock and I share the same dog:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I'm all for OAS being refocused on the lower wage earners. I reckon I can manage on my own pension plus my military pay-out that's in a locked-in plan. Plus the Limeys will have to give me a bit of cash (it should get me a pizza a month).

andyt andyt:

The OAS clawback starts at a ridiculously high amount - OAS is welfare, why does somebody making 70k need welfare? Lower the clawback income dramatically.

And build in more flexibility that encourages people to work longer but at the same time doesn't penalize people who can't work because of illness or other reasons. Maybe raise OAS/GAIN qualifying age (and CPP) but then allow it to kick in earlier for valid medical reasons.

More fun to just fling shit tho, right?

[redhatmamma]

I don't consider the clawback as a ridiculously high amount, it's only middle income to start. I'm okay with wealthy people not getting it, but let's not start penalizing the working stiffs for saving....

Not to mention everything is hyperbole and speculation so we should wait to fling mud until we have some to fling.. mind you it's a good platform for the Liberals to go ape shit on, Bob Rae's been making like a windmill lately as he fumigates and fear mongers for all he's worth.

[andyt]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

I don't consider the clawback as a ridiculously high amount, it's only middle income to start. I'm okay with wealthy people not getting it, but let's not start penalizing the working stiffs for saving....

Not to mention everything is hyperbole and speculation so we should wait to fling mud until we have some to fling.. mind you it's a good platform for the Liberals to go ape shit on, Bob Rae's been making like a windmill lately as he fumigates and fear mongers for all he's worth.

Why does somebody who has 61k in net income need govt welfare of $6000 to top it off? It's not a program they paid into like CPP.

[EyeBrock]

I agree with andy on this one.

[andyt]

I'll go further and say let's make sure no senior has less than 20,000 to live on, adjusted for inflation. But let's find a way to reward people who stay on the job till 67 and don't collect until then.

[OnTheIce]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

I don't consider the clawback as a ridiculously high amount, it's only middle income to start. I'm okay with wealthy people not getting it, but let's not start penalizing the working stiffs for saving....

This has nothing to do with saving. People don't save for their OAS, we give it to them as a welfare for all seniors.

People don't work all their life in hopes to get a sad amount of OAS at the end of their career.

I won't need my OAS and neither do many seniors today and going forward.

[OnTheIce]

eureka eureka:

The further point is that the ultimate ain of Harper is to get out of this altogether. He wants a strictly constructionist view of the Constitution and the federal government looking after defence, foreign affairs and not much else.

I wonder what kind of "libertarian" he would have been in the days when Ontario and Quebec carried the freight and Alberta was a poor relation living on the charity of Central Canada.

All that fuels his dream of converting Canada into a latter day Hanseatic League is oil.

You make some good points, then you top it off with tin-foil asshattery. People will never take you seriously when you drop turds like that.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

I'll go further and say let's make sure no senior has less than 20,000 to live on, adjusted for inflation. But let's find a way to reward people who stay on the job till 67 and don't collect until then.

The current system already does that - the longer you wait to collect OAS or CPP the larger your payments are.