Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard
Because the other option can be horrifying with senior citizens starving and homeless. You are transferring your views onto other people, 30-40 years ago it wasn't as common for women to be in the work force and quite uncommon for them to be in high paying position which would be required in order for them to save money for retirement.
I think that people are mistaking the issue, it isn't that a group of people has been lazy, hasn't saved or has been foolish with their money - although I am sure that this has happened - it is that people are living longer, which is a good thing, particularly from a humanistic standpoint, however at the same time this has resulted in a situation in which people are drawing upon OAS for a longer period of time. Getting rid of things such as OAS/GIS mostly harm those on the bottom rungs of society.
|
Changing the eligibility age to 67 isn't the same as putting all the poor seniors out to sea on ice flows. Presumably the future poor seniors who are currently poor/not-saving 45 year olds can work another 2 years if they have 10-20 years of notice they'll have to do so.
Life expectancies have increased by a huge amount. Is there any reason that increase should be 100% retirement?