Harper considering raising OAS age to 67

Many countries in Europe have raised retirement age to 67.
More will follow, so its would not be surprising to see it here.

Alos, no matter how it is implemented, someone is going to get the shaft.


All the more reason to have your own program in place.

makes sense. When it was initially implemented most working people(mostly men) retired at 65, then died within 5 years. There was none of this retiring at 55 and then living another 25 years.

There are better ways to do it. The federal gov should quit pussy-footing around and bring in a full phased retirement program already. Forcing people to work full time jobs longer isn't the answer, but typical of the uncreative conservative coercion-based approach to problem-solving.

Retiring at 55 is already fast becoming a thing of the past without Harper's help. employers aren't that generous anymore and people have way too much debt carried far longer into life.

A thing of the past? It was something that came into fad in the mid to late eighties and as you pointed out, not that practical in most people's plans nowadays.

I think the retiring at 55 was more of an American thing. IIRC, 55 is the age yer considered a senior down there.

I don't have a problem with incentives stay working longer, or for deferring retirement age. As things it is unsustanble as life expectancy has increased so much and our population is aging.

If it's anything like Paul Martins Seniors Benefit proposal it'll go down in flames like his did, but until I hear actual details and legislation I'll ait judgement, we know nothing yet.

This is a fishing expedition. It's the thin edge of the same wedge going on at Caterpillar. Anyone with a pension, private or otherwise, look the fuck out.

The changing demographics with the increasing demand that seniors are putting on the health system and social programs has been discussed before. It needs to be addressed in regards to a sustainable and affordable program. In the 60's the piddling expense for seniors was covered out of general revenue. In the 80's we started to move to a properly funded CPP as changing demographics was making a general revenue program a huge future liability. Now CPP is 9.9% of earned income to the annually changing max to fund the liability. OAS on the other hand is not a direct tax funded program, but still comes from general revenue. Your CPP payments are directly related to your contributions where OAS is a program to reward people 65 and older regardles of income level or taxes paid. The catch 22 is the seniors are an ever growing percentage of the poplulation and the ability of the decreasing percentage of the 'working' population to support senior programs is decreasing correspondingly.

The first move was to change the penalty/reward system on early and late retirement for CPP. The incentive for many people will be to defer taking CPP to at least 65 compared to the previous high levels of starting CPP between 60 and 65. Changing the OAS date is another step. Politically announcing a program that would move the date out at a slower rate might be more palatible (eg. 3 months per year so that it would be 67 in 8 years), but that depends on the projections of the increasing costs allowing for a slow move on OAS.

Putting all the projected numbers our for public view with the corresponding costs would create the buy in of the general public of the need for a change. Or it could be used as a way of budget redirection away from other programs. To take an extreme: we can fund the GHG reductions to $$$$$ if we reduce OAS benefits by $$$$$ or we can maintain OAS benefits and reduce GHG by $$$$$. I am sure the NDP would have a different view of where the funds would come from, but the debates would still focus the public on the huge economic issue of an aging population increasing demands on the social systems.

Just come up with a scam like private companies use on managers.
Fire them at 64 1/2 for any phoney reason at all and give them nothing.

And the backlash begins - and seniors vote:

As opposition builds, PMO seeks to blunt charges it is going after seniors
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/pension-cuts-w ... 32130.html

I could've told him that would happen, just as Paul Martin when he tried to do it LOL

Hope this comes to fruition. I understand that seniors usually can't support themselves anymore, but the fact remains that the rest of the population wont be able to support them either in the coming years. If they had more children back when they were in their 20s-40s, we wouldn't be having this issue. But the 2.1 births per mother ratio wasn't maintained, leading to this demographic imbalance. The only way now to correct the balance is to alter the age ranges involved so as to make the demographic ratio more manageable and hopefully more sustainable.

Maybe make it so that if you never had kids, you qualify for sweet fuck all. I doubt that would go over very well. Charter challenges and such.

And yet just about the whole world is moving toward having less kids. To accomplish what you want, you'd have to keep women barefoot and in the kitchen. Damn education for women, what idiot thought that one up.

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.