Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
It's not that I disagree, because I don't, but people want every dime they can get "for free" from the government. Just the move by Harper to delay OAS to 67 was met with derision and anger. I've explained to a lot of people that you don't pay into OAS and it comes from general revenue, but they take the view that they've been funding this for decades with their taxes and when it's their turn, they want it.
It's political suicide to consider cutting this, at this point. Will that change when todays 40 year olds are ready to retire? I doubt it. People want all of their entitlements!
|
Well that's the problem. Conservative parties will implement tax cuts that often provide little benefit and not really consider how to pay for them long term, while the Liberals/NDP will happily increase benefits (often for people who don't really need them), again without really considering the long-term cost. And both of those things are far, far harder to reverse than they are to enact.
So what will likely happen is we'll needlessly let it get to crisis territory, at which point the public will be more accepting of dramatic changes. Unfortunately, one side of the political spectrum's idea of dramatic changes seems to involve making the system even less efficient through introducing more privatization and profit motives.
That's why I think more hidden changes like payroll taxes and changes to OAS clawbacks for people who don't need the money would be more palatable in the short term than an increase in income taxes.