OAS Elegibility going up to 67

[albertGQ]

I think the govt shouldn't punish people that have been very diligent in saving for retirement within their RSPs with clawbacks. If TFSA withdrawals don't affect OAS clawbacks, I'd like to see the same for RIF withdrawals eventually.

[darklord700]

OAS should be dropped altogether. There's no reason someone should get money just by being at a certain age. Save for your retirement and work hard when you are young. If you don't, you should bear the full consequences.

Yes, I'm an ugly right wing capital extremist.

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

Now I get it.

I would imagine that 90% of this board owns RY either directly or indirectly as a top 10 holding. Name me another Canadian company as dominant in so many areas : insurance, mortgages, investments, banking etc. Not trying to come into an OAS thread and get into a TFSA but all banks aren't equal and RBC has been a leader in investment performance and investment cost containment. Truly independent investors/advisors will recognize this and there is no conflict of interest in the facts.
http://funds.rbcgam.com/learning-cen...investing.html
Even other banks like National Bank realized they couldn't keep up and came out with Meritage Portfolios years ago for this very reason. Complete objectivity. Just didn't get the unwarranted blanket bank hate is all....

[Robotic]

Seems like everyone here loves their TFSA. I just wish that more people would get into it. I try to convince younger and older people to start their TFSA, but some people are just lazy or not informed. I believe Harper said that he would increase the yearly contribution limit to $10,000 when the country is out of dept. That would be great because my stocks are tied up in my TFSA, and I'd love to double my yearly contribution. I've also read numerous articles over the past year that people believe that TFSA is more beneficial for the middle class than RRSP.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by darklord700

OAS should be dropped altogether. There's no reason someone should get money just by being at a certain age. Save for your retirement and work hard when you are young. If you don't, you should bear the full consequences.

Yes, I'm an ugly right wing capital extremist.

Pretty novel concept. For the most part, yes that is what people should do. But our society is better off if we help those that 'need' help, so that they don't become an even bigger drain on the taxpayer.

There is such a thing as an efficient welfare program.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Robotic

I believe Harper said that he would increase the yearly contribution limit to $10,000 when the country is out of dept.

I think Harper said when we balance our budget, it would take eons for us to get out of debt assuming we could even do that with all these OAS/GIS payments we are making.

$10K TFSA would be great, higher would be even better. The people should take care of their own retirement, not counting on the government. In which case you're just robbing the next generation of their wealth.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

I think the govt shouldn't punish people that have been very diligent in saving for retirement within their RSPs with clawbacks. If TFSA withdrawals don't affect OAS clawbacks, I'd like to see the same for RIF withdrawals eventually.

Fat chance for RIF to have no clawbacks when the government is cutting down on OAS/GIS. There're a couple of high risk RRSP melt down strategies available if you have a large RRSP account. I've studied a few but it's kind of useless to plan it now when the RRSP rules could change by a lot when I retire.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by macker

I would imagine that 90% of this board owns RY either directly or indirectly as a top 10 holding. Name me another Canadian company as dominant in so many areas : insurance, mortgages, investments, banking etc. Not trying to come into an OAS thread and get into a TFSA but all banks aren't equal and RBC has been a leader in investment performance and investment cost containment. Truly independent investors/advisors will recognize this and there is no conflict of interest in the facts.
http://funds.rbcgam.com/learning-cen...investing.html
Even other banks like National Bank realized they couldn't keep up and came out with Meritage Portfolios years ago for this very reason. Complete objectivity. Just didn't get the unwarranted blanket bank hate is all....

TD sells more insurance than RBC, and arguably has the best bond desk in Canada. It's great that you and a lot of other people in Canada own RBC stock; but there are definitely other options. Truth be told if you took the names off the pages and compared some of the financials between Canadian and US banks you might be in for a surprise! Some of those US banks aren't looking anywhere near as risky (contrary to popular belief). Although, I suppose that would mean that I'm not "truly independent" to take it that far?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by darklord700

$10K TFSA would be great, higher would be even better. The people should take care of their own retirement, not counting on the government. In which case you're just robbing the next generation of their wealth.

Sure sounds good but we paid for the previous generation and never complained, now your generation wants to opt out? In most traditional societies it's a given that the older generation is cared for when they need help. It's usually on a more personal basis but with our mobile society and the break down of families, this is the best that can be done. More power to you if you can arrange your finances so that you won't need the Old Age Pension, but don't complain about your generation having to pay for it.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Sure sounds good but we paid for the previous generation and never complained, now your generation wants to opt out? In most traditional societies it's a given that the older generation is cared for when they need help. It's usually on a more personal basis but with our mobile society and the break down of families, this is the best that can be done. More power to you if you can arrange your finances so that you won't need the Old Age Pension, but don't complain about your generation having to pay for it.

Well, there is certainly a demographic issue here. The "previous generation" of boomers only had to cover a much smaller old generation. Now it's going to be the other way around.


Workers per retired person
1991 - 3.8
2001 - 2.7
2011 - 1.8 (projected back in 2005, not sure what it is now.)


Then again, everybody knew that was going to be a problem for a long time now. I'm sure all these old people managed to save up to take care of themselves with so much warning.

Seriously though, given those numbers - current retirees should only be expecting half of what they paid out to their previous generation. Unless of course your comment above includes telling "our generation not to complain while you squeeze out twice as much as you paid out."

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Sure sounds good but we paid for the previous generation and never complained, now your generation wants to opt out?

I don't want to opt out but it is still everybody pays for themselves. Going into debt to pay for OAS is robbing the next generation, a ponzi scheme that will stop at one generation or another.

If this generation can't pay for it, then the boomers just can't maintain their cozy senior life style with the this level of OAS and GIS. A boomer couple could get about $25K-$30K in OAS and GIS assuming they have no other source of income and pay little to none income tax. $25K is just little less than the take home pay of an average Canadian family. Does it make sense to you?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Well, there is certainly a demographic issue here. The "previous generation" of boomers only had to cover a much smaller old generation. Now it's going to be the other way around.


Workers per retired person
1991 - 3.8
2001 - 2.7
2011 - 1.8 (projected back in 2005, not sure what it is now.)


Then again, everybody knew that was going to be a problem for a long time now. I'm sure all these old people managed to save up to take care of themselves with so much warning.

Seriously though, given those numbers - current retirees should only be expecting half of what they paid out to their previous generation. Unless of course your comment above includes telling "our generation not to complain while you squeeze out twice as much as you paid out."

Sure some adjustments may have to be made but I was replying to dark lord who thinks this

OAS should be dropped altogether.

is a good idea, so he doesn't have any responsibility to the previous generation.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

so he doesn't have any responsibility to the previous generation.

I do think I have responsibility to the previous generation. But if some members of the society didn't go to school or work when they were younger, why should I take care of them when they get older?

I think the current OAS/GIS is deeply flawed.

For example, a senior immigrant can collect OAS/GIS after being here for ten year, why? In reality that senior immigrant could be here for as little as a few years and still collect OAS/GIS.

If a senior woman didn't work her entire life, she can still collect OAS/GIS, why?

I suggest scrapping OAS/GIS and replacing it with an income based system similar to the CPP. In that for how much you contributed throughout your working life, you get proportionally that much back when you retire.

I can see that if a person is disable and can't work, the society should take care of that person. But if someone choses not to work during his/her youth, I don't think I have any responsibility to that person financially when they get older.

[freedogger]

With 20+ years till my retirement I expect OAS, CPP and the CDN to be looted, pillaged, devalued to pretty much nuthin.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by freedogger

With 20+ years till my retirement I expect OAS, CPP and the CDN to be looted, pillaged, devalued to pretty much nuthin.

As long as you are not the last one left holding the bag, you'll be fine.

- Baby Boomers

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

TD sells more insurance than RBC, and arguably has the best bond desk in Canada. It's great that you and a lot of other people in Canada own RBC stock; but there are definitely other options. Truth be told if you took the names off the pages and compared some of the financials between Canadian and US banks you might be in for a surprise! Some of those US banks aren't looking anywhere near as risky (contrary to popular belief). Although, I suppose that would mean that I'm not "truly independent" to take it that far?

And in other news.....RBC once again ranked #1 Private Bank (5 years in a row).

[MarchHare]

If a senior woman didn't work her entire life, she can still collect OAS/GIS, why?

Have you even considered that it was far less common for today's senior women to be part of the workforce when they were younger? Do we really want a society where elderly widows are left eating cat food and living in squalor because societal norms during their prime working years were such that women were expected to stay at home? How much would dealing with that problem cost the taxpayers?

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Have you even considered that it was far less common for today's senior women to be part of the workforce when they were younger?

I don't disagree with that. However, if women in the boomer generation could survive and raise a family based on one income at that time, they should be able to do that based on one OAS/GIS when they retire.

I think it's fair that the boomer generation is a one income family, so they draw one OAS/GIS. The X generation is a two income family, so they draw two OAS/GIS. I know it's not going to be this precise but user pay should be the general idea when designing a tax or welfare system.

And I don't believe in free for all OAS/GIS. I know some seniors living with their families, have little to no expenses and they still got full OAS/GIS. What happen is that those OAS/GIS just became the inheritance to their children on eday. Is that what the system was designed for?

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I don't disagree with that. However, if women in the boomer generation could survive and raise a family based on one income at that time, they should be able to do that based on one OAS/GIS when they retire.

I think it's fair that the boomer generation is a one income family, so they draw one OAS/GIS. The X generation is a two income family, so they draw two OAS/GIS. I know it's not going to be this precise but user pay should be the general idea when designing a tax or welfare system.

And I don't believe in free for all OAS/GIS. I know some seniors living with their families, have little to no expenses and they still got full OAS/GIS. What happen is that those OAS/GIS just became the inheritance to their children on eday. Is that what the system was designed for?

You seem to have a real disdain for the so called boomer generation. You also don't seem to place any value on the work done by the traditional homemaker. The first boomers entered the workforce in the mid sixties, so I would say that the majority of that generation's family units coming later were two income families anyway. It just sounds like a lot of resentment to me. The best thing to do is gradually lower the threshold for clawbacks, not arbitrarily cut off people (mostly women) because they had the gall to actually nurture their family.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Red Ice Player

You seem to have a real disdain for the so called boomer generation.

Keep in mind how all of this played out. For decades the boomer generation spent more money than it had on gov't services. They just kept adding to the provincial and federal debt. We are now at a point where we realize that we cannot continue and we need to cut back. Is it not fair to ask the people who racked up the debt to be included in the cutting back?

I agree with MarchHare; we also have to make sure we aren't cutting back to the point where seniors cannot afford to live. There needs to be a balance.