Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
That is an interesting one. Personally, I don't have a problem with having people not qualify if they exceed some limits. The question again, is what should the limit be? I don't think you can base it on net assets - a million is not much for a couple facing 40 years of retirement for example.
I think you would have to base it on income - if your income is greater than X, then you wouldn't qualify for OAS and CPP (that year, making it an annual test).
To me, this is a better route to go, because, instead of taxing savings (estate tax), it reduces pressure on the social safety net.
Also, what if someone's savings disappeared? If you based it on assets, and turn they off, they might be screwed at some point.
But if you base it on income, if they lose their savings, then their income would drop and they would requalify.
|
Thats the interesting thing, OAS has that test in the form of a Clawback, but the problem is that people can choose to pull CPP and OAS first and then determine how much to take out of their own savings. So they maximize the Government benefits first and then determine how much they've got to kick in out of their own money to make ends meet.
That does not solve the problem.
My sort of off-the-cuff proposal was to try and reverse the order.
At the end of the day though, all of these thoughts and ideas end in the same way. We are effectively conspiring to create different classes of citizens whereas an Estate Tax would just set limits and restrictions.