Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
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.
|
No we're not, they exist already.
Most social programs work on a declining qualification basis as income rises. There is no reason why that isn't possible for CPP as well.
It helps alleviate the problem you are concerned about (CPP is underfunded and increasingly unsupportable), whereas re-taxing savings simply punishes those that saved, as opposed to addressing the actual problems of the system.
When not enough people are saving (or can't afford to save), you don't solve the problem by punishing the savers - you try to create more savers and more savings to alleviate the problem. Again, making savings mandatory, like Australia does, is a step in the right direction. Punishing the savers is not.