View Single Post
Old 02-27-2012, 03:25 PM   #109
bizaro86
Franchise Player
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji View Post
darklord is suggesting that no one should be getting OAS, not that well off people shouldnt be. He is claiming that they shouldn't be given cash, but given training so they can be productive in society and earn their way. edit: reading further, obviously I have been mistaken and he only wants it abolished for people who are either very rich (and obviously don't need it) or poor because they didn't work.

I have no problems with changing the way OAS applies to people of various age or income categories, but I have serious problems with abolishing it all together.
I'm definitely not purporting that darklord's argument is correct, as I'm honestly having a hard time following it. The thread seems to have devolved into whether we should keep OAS at all, which is a bit ridiculous, as killing it completely would be political suicide.

Changing eligibility slowly over time to 67 is perfectly reasonable, and was the thread's original topic. As I mentioned above, there's no reason that 100% of the increase in lifespan should be allocated to taxpayer funded retirement.

Changing the clawback hurdles is also completely reasonable. The people collecting and about to begin collecting OAS have consistently (as a generational group) spent more on gov't services than they've paid, which is why the gov't debt exists. I don't see any reason why the cutoffs to clawbacks should be as high as they are, and haven't seen anyone really defend that. Someone who has a significantly above average income shouldn't be collecting money from a direct transfer social program.
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote