371 replies to this topic

[punked]

The lower taxes that this country has come to have probably contributed to our good fortune during the recession. You look at cities like Toronto, Calgary, and even Winnipeg. The investment never stopped.

Give me a break. There are plenty of cities like that, it does not mean that has to do with low taxes and we both know that.

[punked]

People are stupid and selfish on issues like this. Giving them a chance to vote on it will probably take us down the road to financial ruin.

That is the peoples of this countries choice. Seriously issues as big as this one deserve to be put in a platform and voted on.

[Smallc]

Give me a break. There are plenty of cities like that, it does not mean that has to do with low taxes and we both know that.

There are plenty of cities like that in jurisdictions that are very open in terms of making it easy to invest. Low tax cities are doing well in comparison to others.

[Smallc]

That is the peoples of this countries choice. Seriously issues as big as this one deserve to be put in a platform and voted on.

People of this country generally don't know what they're talking about on this kind of issue. The government should get it done.

[punked]

People of this country generally don't know what they're talking about on this kind of issue. The government should get it done.

Harper should go out and say that if that is what he believes I think differently.

[Smallc]

Harper should go out and say that if that is what he believes I think differently.

It doesn't really matter what people think. That's the point. Either we do it, or we're fucked.

[fellowtraveller]

Harper should go out and say that if that is what he believes I think differently.

Any comment on the actual action proposed by Harper, other than generalized whining about when and where he said it?

[capricorn]

OAS is in great shape right now.

Really? OAS does not have a dedicated account. It comes out of general revenue. So we can't say what shape it's in other than to measure the expenditure as a percent of GDP.

[Topaz]

Question to anyone who agrees with their PM....do you think that the future generations there won't be any "poor seniors"? If there are any changes, I don't think it should be by age, it should be by income. If you don't need it, then you don't need it. If any of you have watched the TV program "Til debt do us part" people of ALL ages are in debt and now with unemployment high there will probably be even more poor seniors in 20-30 years and who will need the OAS at 65 not 67! Seems like the govrnment is hoping these people die before they can collect!

[capricorn]

Hats off to previous govts who took measures to make CPP the sustainable model that it is now.

Amen to that. We can be thankful that the government is not directly involved in its operations and that it's administered by an independent body.

[capricorn]

People are stupid and selfish on issues like this. Giving them a chance to vote on it will probably take us down the road to financial ruin.

Adding to this, if it's too much for Canadians to take, the Conservatives will be brought down in the next election. I think by that time Canadians who are opposed will see the bigger picture and understand the advantages to such forward thinking.

[punked]

Any comment on the actual action proposed by Harper, other than generalized whining about when and where he said it?

I think it is a non-starter it is to big a plan not to put to the people to decide. We voted on an OAS platform it won, we voted on Medicare it won, if you want to change them then put it in your platform and lets have an election on it.

[fellowtraveller]

Question to anyone who agrees with their PM....do you think that the future generations there won't be any "poor seniors"? If there are any changes, I don't think it should be by age, it should be by income. If you don't need it, then you don't need it.

OAS is already affected by income, see below for the calculations. But I expect that the other penny will drop, that the limits for elegibility for OAS will also be altered to cut out high income retirees, and that very low income seniors will either get more OAS earlier, or that the rules around the OAS Supplement will be altered to get them more cash. .

The govt did the something similar for the 'baby bonus' long ago, they addressed the inequity of 'one size fits all' for income supplements.

Old Age Security ("OAS") is a social insurance program that provides a basic level of pension income, on application, to anyone age 65 or over who meets residence requirements. The amount of Old Age Security pension must be included in taxable income. OAS is reduced for persons with high income through a recovery provision of the Income Tax Act.

For 2011, the tax recovery applies to persons whose net income exceeds $67,668. For each $1 of income above this limit, the amount of basic Old Age Security pension reduces by $0.15.

Repayment of "clawed-back" OAS is made through deductions at source. If net income is more than $67,668, one-twelfth of the total estimated repayment for the year will be deducted from your monthly OAS payments. The estimated repayment is based on your previous year's tax return.

[msj]

OAS is already affected by income, see below for the calculations. But I expect that the other penny will drop, that the limits for elegibility for OAS will also be altered to cut out high income retirees, and that very low income seniors will either get more OAS earlier, or that the rules around the OAS Supplement will be altered to get them more cash. .

And this is where I point out the hypocrisy and/or stupidity of the Harper government.

They brought in pension splitting for seniors.

As such, the guy with the Air Canada pension of $120,000/ year with the wife making $4,800 per year on CPP (split off from his CPP) saves $9,000 to $10,000 in taxes/OAS claw back per year (an extreme example but one in which does happen - I have more than a few clients who fit into this scenario).

Many seniors have seen their taxes go down significantly and their OAS clawback reduced to nothing thanks to this change (most people save several hundred to a couple thousand dollars per year in taxes).

A few years later, we get "reforms" to make it "sustainable."

Yeah, if they didn't introduce the pension splitting in the first place they likely would only have to fiddle with the ages a bit (as they should) and everything would be fine.

I'm tired of seniors getting all the tax breaks - I say raise the minimum withdrawals from RRIF's, make them pay tax on this income sooner (reduce the age from 71 to 67), eliminate the age amount tax credit at a lower income amount (say $35,000), and eliminate pension splitting except for CPP (which is at source).

[WWWTT]

Its a lot of fun reading some of the comments here on this thread!

Automatically the conservatives take Harpers side stating that CPP can no longer sustain itself,if not now then maybe in 20 years.

I guess Harper has got one freekin kick ass awesome crystal ball to see what Canadas GDP will be in the future say 20 years to know for sure that our GDP will be incapable to compensate for our expenditures including CPP.

Personally if I had a kick ass crystal ball I would guess the numbers for the lotto max,maybe Harpers crystal ball only works for determining the gullability of his voters?

WWWTT