[SebC]

This debate is being framed as a change to benefit people down the road, but that's completely wrong. Increasing the retirement age and grandfathering it in is basically a wealth transfer from the young to the old.

Young people today are paying taxes to support a benefit level that they won't receive. We should lower the eligibility threshold/increase clawback instead.

See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle2339875/

Spoiler!

The government could either increase the percentage amount of OAS benefits that are clawed back by a modest amount, or it could apply the current clawback rate at a somewhat lower income level. Another option is to de-index the annual income level at which the clawback applies.

It’s a messier approach than raising the minimum OAS age to 67, but it’s also a fairer approach in a generational sense.

The key question here is why today’s younger Canadians – the seniors of tomorrow – must settle for OAS at 67 so current seniors can get it at 65. OAS is not a pension, like the Canada Pension Plan, where you pay premiums in your working years that essentially buy you a certain level of income. OAS is paid on an as-we-go basis out of general government tax revenue, which means people in the work force pay a big part of the OAS benefits that retirees receive.

Frankly, retirement at 67 or even later makes good sense in that it reflects today’s longer lifespans and low levels of retirement savings. But, again, there’s a generational angle to be considered. Seniors would be staying on the job longer, and that could mean fewer opportunities for young workers.