Trudeau Promise Meter

[multimut]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

I can tell you for certain that most pension experts would completely disagree with Trudeau decision to reverse the increase in OAS age from 67 back to 65.

This makes absolutely no sense and is inconsistent with what every other developed country is doing. Worldwide, we see many nations (including the US) slowly increase the social security eligibility age. More and more will follow. Harper did the right thing by making a change for OAS, but giving plenty of notice so that it does not impact those who are retiring soon.

When OAS was first introduced to start at age 65, the expected life time for someone at age 65 would have been in the late 70's. Now, the expected lifetime for a 65 year-old would be in the high 80's (and that's just the average). With current trends, very soon, the expected lifetime for a 65 year old will be above 90. It's pretty obvious that the full eligibility age should go up from 65 as people are living longer. If you make a change to increase the age, the fair thing to do is to give plenty of notice (which is what Harper did).

I guess Trudeau figures it will help win a few votes, and the consequences won't be felt until many years later, when he will have retired as PM and will be doing something big at the UN or internationally, after spending Canadian tax payers money to make himself a star internationally

I think Trudeau likes to do what sounds good, and what makes him popular. E.g. who thinks his plan to spend $2.65 billion to help developing countries reduce use of fossil fuels is a good idea? It will absolutely nothing for the Canadian taxpayer (if fact will hurt Canada), and will likely do nothing to help fight climate change (instead lining the pockets of corrupt government officials in developing countries). But it will help make Trudeau more of a star on the world stage and at the UN.

[Marty Canuck]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

Good post Multimut. I agree wholeheartedly. Less people even want or are ready to retire at 65. Medical science is keeping us healthier, longer. Of course I would retire earlier if I can but if I do it's because I have enough already that the OAS isn't really needed to supplement my own finances.

Then again maybe Trudeau is just making a PR play knowing that most won't take advantage anyway?

[bl8d]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/andrew-coyne-when-if-at-all-this-government-intends-to-bring-the-party-to-an-end-is-at-this-point-very-much-a-mystery

Coyn believes the hangover is not an if, but a when question.

[bogey5]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

Does he listen to his billionaire Finance Minister who ran the family firm that became one of the biggest HR/pension administraters in the business?

[trunckslammer1]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

Most of us here can retire at 60-65 if we want to. Also because of the nature of our work we can keep working up to 70 if we wish.
However, a fair number of blue collar workers - due to the physical nature of their work, their body can only take so much physical abuse. These are the ones that will benefit from the lowering of the OAS especially they are usually the ones who do not have that much monies put away.
The government always claw back the amounts they give you once it is over a certain threshold anyway, so, for those who can and want to work beyond 65-67 you can always do so.

[4underthru9]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

$100 Billion deficit rings a bell, I am sure I heard him bragging about that last October.

[bl8d]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

Did the Libation budget get you everything/anything you were looking for?

[pendlebg]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

Did the Libation budget get you everything/anything you were looking for?

My taxes go down in 2016 but of course I can offset that by donating the difference in next year's return. I could also cut out the middleman and cut a cheque directly to someone in need. I hear Conrad Black could use a leg up these days.

[ecgr2035]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

3 years ago we were already talking about people having to work well beyond the mandatory retirement to support themselves. Understandably this wasn't a proud admission nor concession to make. Full- time job losses, compounded with the pressure to put the younger crowd to work created a desperate climate for the seniors. Those who had jobs desperately tried to hang on to them, and were given some hope o keeping their jobs a little longer with Harpers decision to extend the mandatory retirement to 67. Their income tax would add needed funds to the treasury and in return increase their OAS check.

Canada does not have a mandatory retirement age. The former government increased the age eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67 yrs in 2012 for those born after March 31, 1958.

Those older workers desperately holding onto their jobs would be not be "given hope" by raising the OAS eligibility to 67 yrs as it does not protect them from being laid off and often being forced into early retirement. Rather it creates financial hardship for those who are laid off and forced into involuntary early retirement by forcing them to wait an additional 2 years for OAS payments. That's about $13 or $14K in lost income many can ill afford.

You seem to be suggesting that the former government's move to postpone OAS to 67 yrs somehow prevents older workers from being laid off prematurely, ie, before they want to retire. I fail to understand how you arrive at that conclusion.

As for the argument that "we are all living longer", I would suggest some of us (higher income) are living longer while others (low-income workers, poor) are not. And who would be hurt most from raising OAS? Why the poor/low-income class, of course. That seems to a recurring theme with almost all of the recent policy measures brought forward by the previous government. Thank goodness the current government is beginning to reverse that trend.

[bl8d]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

quote-"You seem to be suggesting that the former government's move to postpone OAS to 67 yrs somehow prevents older workers from being laid off prematurely, ie, before they want to retire. I fail to understand how you arrive at that conclusion."

I was indeed suggesting that, though in practice it is never blatantly positioned as such.
Production employees nearing retirement are often let go before that "Mandatory" age because they are considered a production risk as their health deteriorates.
Those in a managerial position are far more likely to retain their job right into the "M" stage.

Many industries did indeed use the governments qualifying retirement age to ease their older employees out the door. I witnessed several such ramp ceremonies, gold watch and all.

[r1404]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

As for the argument that "we are all living longer", I would suggest some of us (higher income) are living longer while others (low-income workers, poor) are not.

This suggestion is incorrect. There certainly continues to be differences in life expectancy based on level of income, just as there continue to be differences in life expectancy based on obesity, smoking, and which province you are born in. Those differences were there previously, and continue to be there today. However, life expectancies have increased for all income levels.

This reality is what is causing challenges with the funding of state-sponsored as well as private pension schemes, and it is not a Canadian phenomenon. Which is why a number of other countries have raised the age for commencement of state pension benefits.

[68shark]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

This suggestion is incorrect. There certainly continues to be differences in life expectancy based on level of income, just as there continue to be differences in life expectancy based on obesity, smoking, and which province you are born in. Those differences were there previously, and continue to be there today. However, life expectancies have increased for all income levels.

This reality is what is causing challenges with the funding of state-sponsored as well as private pension schemes, and it is not a Canadian phenomenon. Which is why a number of other countries have raised the age for commencement of state pension benefits.

.....and also why the private sector has largely abandoned "defined benefit" pension plans in favour of "defined contribution" pension plans. Transfers investment risk to the employee and if the money runs out before the employee dies, tough.

In the public sector, of course, we graciously shield our civil servants from these realities.

[jimfastcar]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

$ 675 Million for CBC and $ 8 Million for Counter-Terrorism

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-liberals-go-down-yellow-brick-road-with-spend-then-tax-budget

[r1404]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

I particularly like how the Liberals are going to prove to us that the Conservatives were lying when they said they would run a surplus this fiscal year. And to prove that point, they are going to run a projected $5.4 billion deficit as of the Government's March 31 year end, despite having a surplus of $4.3 billion as of January 31, per John Ivison in yesterday's Post. Damn you Stephen Harper!

Andrew Coyne also had a very provocative take on the fashionable 1% vs 99% debate, which included the following:

"So instead the budget returns to an earlier Liberal theme: the forlorn Canadian middle class, struggling to get by, working harder for less pay while watching all of the income gains going to the top 1 per cent. Which is a perfectly splendid description of the state of things in the 1980s and early 1990s. It was true then that median incomes were declining — not surprisingly, as that period was bracketed by the two worst recessions since the Depression. Likewise, the incomes of those at the very top indeed grew faster than the other 99 per cent — in that period. But neither has been true since then. In the last two decades median household incomes have grown by 20 per cent after inflation. The share of income going to the top 1 per cent has been falling steadily since 2006, and is no higher now than it was in 1998. The Liberals are importing the problems of three decades ago into the present. In short, the budget’s whole premise is a fraud."

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/andrew-coyne-federal-budget-2016-is-one-from-the-1970s-to-address-problems-of-1980s

[Trips]

Re: Trudeau Promise Meter

All the talk of Liberal waste makes me laugh, it's as though they believe the Conservative government were fiscally responsible. If you truly believe that, can you explain this;