Anyone notice that the government has not provided any data on how many people will be affected and how much a person, say age 50, will need to save per month to make up for this loss in PENSION income?
I am quite sure the Department of Finance has done these calculations. However, as usual, the government has decided not to share this information with us. And now that Stats Canada no longer does the Long Form Census, it is probably difficult for anyone else to do it.
As an aside, my own hunch is the OAS cutback is just a smoke screen to cover what the government REALLY wanted to do in the budget which is to gut environmental protection laws.
By having the OAS cutbacks in there, the government cleverly gives the media something to talk about, thus allowing the cutting of the environmental laws to escape scrutiny.
Bottom End - 13 years ago
You heard it here first......be prepared in less than 10 years we will have a seniors ghetto in every major centre....
Diana Nutt - 13 years ago
There are a couple of problems with the way the Conservatives are handling the OAS. If you have a job where you sit at a desk, it won't be a hardship to work two more years but if you have a physical job it will be very difficult. It would have been a better to clawback the pension from those with hefty pensions and leave the retirement date the same. Why would anyone with a pension of over one hundred thousand dollars a year get OAS. It would have been nice to see the MPs take a little of the pain in their pensions now instead of after the next election. With two thirds of the population without a company pension plan and now having to retire later this plan is completely unfair to most people. Policy makers are just pigs at the trough.
Angela - 13 years ago
If, as Mr. Flaherty says OAS is a Social Program and not a Pension Program, how come people earning up to $107,000 can collect this OAS (with some clawback) but nontheless, still receive it. If it is a Social Program, give it to the people who need it (those living below the poverty line). Why is this not being changed? Today Mr. Flaherty was asked that question by a Reporter and it was not answered.
Anyone notice that the government has not provided any data on how many people will be affected and how much a person, say age 50, will need to save per month to make up for this loss in PENSION income?
I am quite sure the Department of Finance has done these calculations. However, as usual, the government has decided not to share this information with us. And now that Stats Canada no longer does the Long Form Census, it is probably difficult for anyone else to do it.
As an aside, my own hunch is the OAS cutback is just a smoke screen to cover what the government REALLY wanted to do in the budget which is to gut environmental protection laws.
By having the OAS cutbacks in there, the government cleverly gives the media something to talk about, thus allowing the cutting of the environmental laws to escape scrutiny.
You heard it here first......be prepared in less than 10 years we will have a seniors ghetto in every major centre....
There are a couple of problems with the way the Conservatives are handling the OAS. If you have a job where you sit at a desk, it won't be a hardship to work two more years but if you have a physical job it will be very difficult. It would have been a better to clawback the pension from those with hefty pensions and leave the retirement date the same. Why would anyone with a pension of over one hundred thousand dollars a year get OAS. It would have been nice to see the MPs take a little of the pain in their pensions now instead of after the next election. With two thirds of the population without a company pension plan and now having to retire later this plan is completely unfair to most people. Policy makers are just pigs at the trough.
If, as Mr. Flaherty says OAS is a Social Program and not a Pension Program, how come people earning up to $107,000 can collect this OAS (with some clawback) but nontheless, still receive it. If it is a Social Program, give it to the people who need it (those living below the poverty line). Why is this not being changed? Today Mr. Flaherty was asked that question by a Reporter and it was not answered.