By raising eligibility of OAS and GIS to 67 (equivalent to US social security), the Canadian Government took $30,528 from the poorest (1278/month), and at least $13000 (540.12/month) from all Canadians (who will live in Canada for 20+ years before retirement) . They may take even more from you by raising the eligibility age again before you reach 67, or canceling the benefits altogether.
The root of the problem is that young people will be paying taxes to support the old, while only the current old get the benefits. The baby boomer generation who has been spoiled by past social programs will naturally be more willing to bankrupt the country (and others in OECD) destroying society within 50 years (after their death) if they get to maintain or increase their social benefits at the expense of everyone else. This makes democracy corrupt and unworkable, and at a crisis point over the world
The answer, IMO, is to reduce the eligibility age for OAS to 18. All adults would receive it. Can get rid of welfare, GIS, EI to help pay for it. Another name for this is basic income, and at $7000/year would actually not be an extra expense on the government/tax payers
The answer, IMO, is to reduce the eligibility age for OAS to 18. All adults would receive it. Can get rid of welfare, GIS, EI to help pay for it. Another name for this is basic income, and at $7000/year would actually not be an extra expense on the government/tax payers
While lucky and successful working people would still be subsidizing those who are less fortunate, by paying more than they receive, they would at least be paying for a safety net they not just merely eligible to receive, but actively receive it each month themselves.
For young people, they could use the money for university or booze or help pump up the economy in other ways. They're all free to work as much as they want ontop of the OAS funds, and not trapped into staying poor or unemployed in order to keep qualifying for handouts.
The retirement social contract
National pensions and old age security have some philosophical and economic justification. The retirement social contract justifies that most of the taxes you pay in your youth will be returned to you at retirement in the form of pensions and healthcare. The human nature and economic presumptions of old age benefits compared to basic income is that it forces the young to enslave themselves until retirement, and so serves corporate masters with a larger supply of slaves. There is also a principle of reward and compassion provided to those who likely spent their life contributing to society.
The retirement social contract is a bit of an illusion and pyramid scheme because today's taxes are used to pay for today's retirees. It is only reasonably fair if the benefits are guaranteed for every current generation. If today's baby boomers and seniors benefited from generous social programs in their youth, deficit financed useless wars (fought by the young), deficit financed prescription drug entitlements, and calamitous sea level rise scheduled 50 years from now, and then keeping retirement benefits only for themselves, while gutting programs benefiting younger generations, is pure evil theft by conservative politicians and conservative-voting age brackets. Guaranteeing the retirement pyramid scheme for all current generations by taxing enough to create budget surpluses, or eliminating useless and corrupt programs is the only moral option to providing basic income (or OAS to 18+ year olds). If basic income turns out to be unsustainable, then civilization collapses for everyone at the same time, having received equal benefits... having extracted an equal amount of flesh from the carcass. More importantly, it creates an equal say in preventing social collapse.
Timing the collapse of society for just after the full and long life of baby boomers is so digusting that it justifies expelling conservative politicians and their supporters from our nations... treating them like thieves. This abuse is as discriminatory as giving benefits only to the majority race or gender.
If we are going to intentionally allow the destruction of civilization, the only moral choice, is to schedule it to happen 90 years from now. Alternatively, if retirement or other entitlements have just been discovered to be unsustainable, replace them with basic income that are scheduled to run out in 30-50 years, so that the costs and benefits of that unsustainability are spread out among all generations.
Another alternative is that if only those over 54 are eligible for some current and future benefits, then those over 54 should pay higher tax rates.
The retirement social contract is a bit of an illusion and pyramid scheme because today's taxes are used to pay for today's retirees. It is only reasonably fair if the benefits are guaranteed for every current generation. If today's baby boomers and seniors benefited from generous social programs in their youth, deficit financed useless wars (fought by the young), deficit financed prescription drug entitlements, and calamitous sea level rise scheduled 50 years from now, and then keeping retirement benefits only for themselves, while gutting programs benefiting younger generations, is pure evil theft by conservative politicians and conservative-voting age brackets. Guaranteeing the retirement pyramid scheme for all current generations by taxing enough to create budget surpluses, or eliminating useless and corrupt programs is the only moral option to providing basic income (or OAS to 18+ year olds). If basic income turns out to be unsustainable, then civilization collapses for everyone at the same time, having received equal benefits... having extracted an equal amount of flesh from the carcass. More importantly, it creates an equal say in preventing social collapse.
Timing the collapse of society for just after the full and long life of baby boomers is so digusting that it justifies expelling conservative politicians and their supporters from our nations... treating them like thieves. This abuse is as discriminatory as giving benefits only to the majority race or gender.
If we are going to intentionally allow the destruction of civilization, the only moral choice, is to schedule it to happen 90 years from now. Alternatively, if retirement or other entitlements have just been discovered to be unsustainable, replace them with basic income that are scheduled to run out in 30-50 years, so that the costs and benefits of that unsustainability are spread out among all generations.
Another alternative is that if only those over 54 are eligible for some current and future benefits, then those over 54 should pay higher tax rates.
