Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
If I had the time, and I actually thought you would read them, I could point to a few studies on the social return on investment that show that investing money in people who would otherwise be destitute costs society far less than dealing with the consequences of them being destitute. It is actually to the order of several magnitudes.
I understand that you really just think these people any disadvantaged person should fend for themselves. I understand that you don't think the government should be spending money on them at all. However, the reality is, it wouldn't be cheaper in this case.
|
Giving money to people who would otherwise be destitute so they aren't is a good idea.
Out of curiousity, how much money would you have the gov't give a senior couple with equal incomes and a combined income of 130k per year? If I was picking, that amount would be zero. Right now they would get the full amount of OAS.
The cutoff before you stop getting any OAS is >100k per year for an individual. Now, I know CP's average income is greater than the Canadian average, but is anyone really in favour of direct income transfers to people making >100k per year? How can you possibly justify that?