With the average life expectancy so much higher than it was when Old Age Security was set up, does it make sense to push back the age of retirement? Does anyone know what year it was set up to start at age 65? If it was set up in the 40’s or earlier that maybe it should be changed.

People who have been paying into the pensions system for 30+ years with the plan of retiring at age 60 or 65 should not be asked to put that off for 2 more years until age 67. I think that is unreasonable and a disgraceful treatment of our older citizens. If they want to put this into law and have it only affect those who are have less than 20 years paying into the system, that would be a lot fairer. That gives those people a lot longer to make changes in thier life to compensate. 2 years is a big deal to people of that age who have limited time left to live life. Not everyone will have a lifespan of 70 to 80 years as there are lots of elder people who have health issues that would make it a lot easier on them to be able to retire at 60 or 65. This is just another example of Harpers total disregard for the Canadian population, and how he actually has the gall to go after those who have worked and supported this country for thier entire life. I have lost so much faith in the political system and our so-called leaders that anything short of a revolution will not fix the problems.

Scary stuff indeed if you’re close to retirement, but what would we do if the government tried to keep the status quo, and had to announce down the road a bit that the old age pension system is completely “broke”, and we’re going to have to accept the fact that the even the dismal income that used to be provided to pensioners, will now have to be trimmed big time, or maybe even cut off completely to all but possibly the most desperate of individuals !!

These days a LOT of seniors are far healthier than they were at age 65 some forty years ago, and as such, they have no intention of heading for the rocking chair anyway until they are pushing seventy or so, sometimes because they have too many friends who’ve retired and died early due to the drastic and forced change in what used to be an active and productive lifestyle.

Then there are the individuals who’ve contributed virtually nothing to the Canadian economy over their entire lives, but are now eligible to recieve the same benefits as all of us from the medical and pension programs most of us have payed into for a lifetime — but that’s another rant entirely.

The long and the short of it as I see it, is that there’s gonna be some really pi**ed off seniors out there eating catfood, while watching others literally taking the food out of their mouths, sucking up their share of what benefits are left because they “can”.

Some sad days coming indeed.

But of course we have no problem borrowing 1 billion dollars to pay it to these seniors, and stick the current generation with families to support with the debt and interest. OAS is not a pension people paid into – that’s the CPP. Old Age Security is tax funded and was brought in to support seniors to a basic level of pension income. It is now accessible by seniors with an income of over $60,000. So the kid at Home Depot making $30,000 a year is paying tax for a benefit of a Senior making $60,000 a year. Come on, be fair. I think they should grandfather anyone within 10 years of 65, but I think they should start clawing it back for any senior who currently has an income of over $40,000 a year.

I have recently turned forty and have always been aware that by the time I reach retirement age it would be unlikely there would be anything left as the baby boomer generation will have exhausted the CPP. So if extending the old age pension to 67 means there will still be a little left in the coffers for the post baby boomers I am all for it.

Right on hotwire. The fact is that there are not enough working people to sustain the current system for the boomer wave of retirees, and the problem is only going to get worse.

I too would be surprised if there’s anything left when I retire, yet I’m paying into it.

I think the notion that some people grow old fast and die because they retired and became less active is a pretty weak argument to changing the age of retirement. It is a personal choice whether you want to be active or not after retirement. It will no longer be a personal choice whether to retire at 65 or not, and receive OAS, if this is passed. I do 100% agree that it should be based on income though. If you are getting enough through pensions and investments etc, and do not need the extra income to make life a little more comfortable, then you should defer that income. If there is no money left in the pension plan in the next few years, then you can blame the mismanagement of our govts’ rather than the baby boomers. I think the current golden handshake scenario and massive pensions our politicians get should be hugely cut back to a more reasonable rate and that should save millions, if not billions, in the pension system. How do you justify the 100+k pensions were are paying out to politicians who only held office for short times as backups? Or senators who go from 100k jobs per year to retireing and getting 75k per year? That is disgraceful as far as I am concerned.

After you paid Income Tax for over 40 Years the least they can do is pay you the OAS at 65, not all of us are lifting Pencils at Work, so for us 65 can’t be delayed and don’t worry if you make to much Money your OAS will be taxed away. The real Issue Harper wants to buy more Toys like Planes and has to find the Money somewhere .

But: “If there is no money left in the pension plan in the next few years, then you can blame the mismanagement of our govts’ rather than the baby boomers. “

That’s a pretty small consolation for those who get nothing. It’s not about blame, it’s about the huge shift in demographics and making the system sustainable to withstand it. At least the government realizes that and is trying to stem the tide somewhat.

And you really believe that is the reason, aye? You have more faith in politicians than me then. You really think that adding 2 years on is going to save the system? I think a lot less waste and a lot more govt responsibility would go a lot farther.

But and Ski,

Why is it that the people who pay the most into the tax system are expected to get less than those who have paid the least?

At the very core, these are political decisions and they are a refection of what the government feels is important and just. That’s the bottom line.

As usual it’s all about johnnybelt. Care for some cheese with your whine?

1 is the CPP ,all who work for a living pay directly into it, the other is OAS again we all add to it by paying Income Tax and many other Forms of Taxation. A lot of Misinformation is sown by the Government to suite there Agenda. “Propaganda what a wonderfull Tool it is”

Maybe the purchase of Fighter Jets should be cancelled, maybe government should down size and become more fiscally responsible, maybe some day we can have a Prime Minister that will steal from the rich instead of from the poor, maybe one day Canadians will wake up…

I have seen comments attributed to the govt saying or implying that taking away the oas will encourage people to work longer —- seems to me to be the wrong way to encourage people — more like forcing.

Why not do something imaginative —- say reduce the oas for a number of years after 65 rather than eliminating it and reduce the income tax dramatically for those that have to work after 65 — means tested. I would guess that those that can work would leap at it if they payed less tax on those earnings.

Joeboy, stalking me again. You just can’t resist can you? I’m flattered by all your attention, but I just don’t swing that way.

Perfect! Seniors who depend on CPP and OAS are the easiest target, of course! The rich have the means, connections and money to defend themselves! They are also able to be very generous when it comes to supporting their choice of political party.

Porter – no good answer to your question. I guess you have to ask yourself what kind of world you want to live in. I agree, it sucks to pay taxes all your life, and then not get something because you did such a good job looking after yourself. But the situation we’re facing, is the taxes coming in are less than what the government is paying out. No one wants taxes raised. No one wants healthcare cut. No one wants education cut. etc. So, if you’re going to cut, you target who can take the hit with the least amount of pain. If you cut the OAS of somebody who only get’s CPP and didn’t look after themselves, then they would be eating dogfood. Myself, I don’t want to see that. You could tax the very rich people, but they have a knack of moving themselves and their wealth to a country that doesn’t tax them so high. You could tax corporations, but then they move their business and jobs to whoever isn’t taxing them so hard. I know this, when I was eighteen I had all the answers, now that I’m over 50 I don’t have any answers some days.

The baby boomers had good times. cheap taxes and rapid development.

The next generation is now left with the burden of fixing up aging infrastructure.

The next generation now is faced with hige repair costs and a big baby boomer pension.

lovely… and our work force is smaller to boot.

Can’t you wait pensioners for the hidden tax to kick in? oh right… that’s inflation

hold on, its going to be a wild ride

The baby boomers had good times. cheap taxes and rapid development.

The next generation is now left with the burden of fixing up aging infrastructure.

The next generation now is faced with hige repair costs and a big baby boomer pension.

lovely… and our work force is smaller to boot.

Can’t you wait pensioners for the hidden tax to kick in? oh right… that’s inflation

hold on, its going to be a wild ride

ski50, who in -ell do you think paid taxes all my working life (40+ years and never asked for handouts). Tired of hearing you of the younger generation complain about the seniors that made it possible for you to live a better life .

This is so typical of the Conservative government to take money from the seniors who don’t speak up for themselves. Why don’t they save money for the extra required for the seniors, or raise the taxes of the rich? Goodness knows the rich can afford to pear down on their wants while the poor have NEEDS that reqauire attention.

“The baby boomers had good times. cheap taxes and rapid development”

Rapid development perhaps but cheap taxes? Rates were far higher for those people that what they are now. Truth be told, I think part of our current problems has to do with the fact that we’ve lowered tax rates too much over the last decade or so.

10 or 20 years ago people weren’t complaining about being “taxed to death” and now that income tax rates in Canada have never been lower, most people think that is exactly what is happening. Personally I think many people just repeat what their loud neighbour says without really thinking about what they are saying.

Heck, I’ve received chain e-mails from friends talking about all the taxes in Canada, yet it’s painfully obvious that if they did ANY research, they would have seen that what there were convinced was real, was actually a complete fabrication.

Perhaps it’s just me, but I have a hard time supporting any government who would propose telling senior citizens that they have to work a couple more years to get income assistance and that for all intents and purposes, they just have to take one for the team. As a 36 year who is active in the workforce, I’d rather pay a few more bucks in tax every year to maintain the society we’ve developed in Canada as opposed to morphing into the “fend for yourself” society that we seem to be headed towards. I just think it’s the right thing to do if we want to have a country we can be proud of.

Stalking you johnny? Just pointing out that, as usual, you have nothing to say. You flatter yourself, you take credit not due, you don’t swing that way? I’d bet you’re big on self abuse.

Hey, I thought we were living in best place in the world.

Taxes = evil
Universal healthcare = good to be Canadian.
Need taxes for universal healthcare.

Seems simple to me, pay the taxes and hangon to our tattered healthcare, or reduce our taxes and live like our half brothers to the south. I personally say, shut up and pay the taxes.

Well retired senior – first, not too far from the great payoff myself so I’m against my own self interest here. Your CPP rate when you started was $1.80 and stayed that way until 1988. Then it creeped up .1% a year. Todays worker is paying 4.95%. Why is that? Why did it only take you 1.8 per 100 and it takes him 4.95 per 100 – it’s because there isn’t enough money in the fund to pay your pension based on what you paid in.

Tax rates – income tax rates are lower, but there never use to be a GST. There never use to be user fees for almost everything. Optometrists, physiotherapy, used to be covered – now it isn’t. Carbon tax – you didn’t have that. The fuel taxes, it goes on and on. Todays generation is getting stuck with more overall taxes, and a huge national debt to boot. So if you read my post, I’m against the 65 to 67 increase, but I don’t think a senior making $60,000 a year in pensions should ask someone making $30,000 a year to pay more tax, so he can collect OAS.
When these pension systems were developed, life expectancy was 72 now it’s 81. We live 9 years longer, consume more health care services, and are asking a shrinking workforce to pay for it. Thanks for your forty years of work, I’m at 40 years of work now because I started at 13, and I’m 12 years away from my pension, so if I can see how unfair this is to the generation below me, why can’t you.
The only group I have real sympathy for – is the people who worked with their hands – millworkers, construction workers, forestry etc. Their work takes a toll on their body, and it’s wrong to ask them to wait, because likely they will die sooner than the office type like me. So I’m okay with the government asking me to work a few extra years, because I’ve got 9 more years of life that has to be paid for, physical workers likely don’t.

“it would be unlikely there would be anything left as the baby boomer generation will have exhausted the CPP.”

Working people (baby boomers, mostly) paid plenty into the CPP since its inception in 1965. Ditto for UI (now EI) contributions into the UI/EI fund. Where are all the untold billions? Did the working people (including those about to retire) plunder CCP and UI/EI?

No! Successive governments diverted the moneys for other purposes, without asking those who paid in for permission!

Had the feds not done this the funds would be enormous in size and more than able to provide generous benefits to everyone forever!

How about blaming the real culprits?

Hey, I thought we were living in best place in the world.

Taxes = evil
Universal healthcare = good to be Canadian.
Need taxes for universal healthcare.

Seems simple to me, pay the taxes and hangon to our tattered healthcare, or reduce our taxes and live like our half brothers to the south. I personally say, shut up and pay the taxes.

I don’t agree that 10 or 20 years ago people werent’ complaining about paying taxes. The only time people probably didn’t complain was when it first came out to support the war effort. I can recall my dad complaining about the amount taxes took off his paychecks over 40 years ago. It may be true that the percentage towards income tax is lower now than it was in the past, but the overall cut into your paycheck has grown substantially in the guise of userfees, other taxes as a way to hide increasing the income tax. And that is done exactly so people THINK thier taxes have gone down. The average working stiff has at the very least 50% of thier wages taken in some form or another if you are above the poverty bracket of 28k/yr.
Anyway you look at it, seniors should not be made to pay for shortfalls govt has caused by mismanagement over the years.

Joeboy: “Stalking you johnny? Just pointing out that, as usual, you have nothing to say.”

Sorry, was I supposed to care about what you thought? Many happen to agree with me, if you cared to read others comments. Go stalk someone else.

I don’t agree that 10 or 20 years ago people werent’ complaining about paying taxes. The only time people probably didn’t complain was when it first came out to support the war effort. I can recall my dad complaining about the amount taxes took off his paychecks over 40 years ago. It may be true that the percentage towards income tax is lower now than it was in the past, but the overall cut into your paycheck has grown substantially in the guise of userfees, other taxes as a way to hide increasing the income tax. And that is done exactly so people THINK thier taxes have gone down. The average working stiff has at the very least 50% of thier wages taken in some form or another if you are above the poverty bracket of 28k/yr.
Anyway you look at it, seniors should not be made to pay for shortfalls govt has caused by mismanagement over the years.

“It may be true that the percentage towards income tax is lower now than it was in the past, but the overall cut into your paycheck has grown substantially in the guise of userfees, other taxes as a way to hide increasing the income tax”

Do you not see the irony here? Lower income taxes and increased user fees or higher income taxes and lower user fees. Which would you prefer and which do you think is better, on an overall basis, for the citizens of the country?

I’ll bet I know which way business would lean since they don’t consume the things that would attract user fees . . .

The governments and unions are both the same. They make up and change the rules of the game as they please. You have no choice but to contribute, but you get paid back a pitance to the amount you put in. That’s the way it has been and it always will be.

You have to take care of your own retirement plan. Don’t count on the CPP,OAS and union pensions alone. any one of them can disappear with in a decade. You can’t rely on the RRSP and the stock market alone either. You can’t rely on real estate alone either. You can’t rely on socking away your money in GIC’s alone either.

What works is the total combination of all of the above, if one goes down the other one goes up.

Seems fitting a copy paste from a privious relpy.

Anyone remember the movie “Logan’s Run” be prepared. Harper is already working on it so is our provincial government.

Harper seems to be the first politician I have come across who can see past the next election. Whether or not he gets re-elected is a moot point. Looking at Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland, I see a pattern here. So can Harper. Let’s all go into a state of national denial. That oughta make everything right. Oh yes, and don’t forget to vote NDP. They will take care of us. Lizzy May too.

Harper is the pension pig that he once mocked!!He does not care what happens to the rest of us as long as he and his buddies collect their gold plated pensions.

I see too many comments that are mixing up the CPP and the OAS. The OAS is for seniors that don’t have any resources to stay above the poverty line. It has nothing to do with the Canada pension, which as working stiffs we contribute to. Lord knows, I will need the OAS when my time comes! Seniors have long memories, Mr. Harper!

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

What a bunch of ranting and raving from all quarters.

1. This change to the OAS will probably be phased in over 10 or more years.

2. If you are over the age of 65 and make more than $68000.00 per year, your OAS is clawed back.

3. People who do not have the Canada Pension Plan, or a private pension now get the OAS which is topped up for low income earners so they collect somewhere in the area of $1100.00 per month.

4. There are many people in this Province who have the CPP, OAS, Private Pension, and RRSP’s plus savings, and other earnings. A married couple who were teachers for 20/30 years who had the above mentioned pensions, would net approx $70,000 per year for the two of them. These people are **Pension Rich** as opposed to **Pension Poor**

5. We always tend to focus on the low income people while overlooking the majority of retired people who have very good pensions, and will never eat dog or cat food.

6. Because the OAS is a Universal Pension plan everyone up to a certain income can claim it.

7. Lets keep in mind that a lot of people had the opportunity to work for 40 years and pay for a CPP, plus RRSP’s etc; but chose to piss thier money away, and now expect the Government to look after them.

8. If people cannot live without their OAS at age 65 to age 67 then they can apply for welfare and access other benefits that are available that would net them the same amount of money that they would get from their OAS benefits.

9. The EI benefits that we all paid into were **stolen** by Paul Martin and the Liberals to the tune of $40 Billion dollars. This money was put into general revenue, and was one of the main reasons he was able to have a balanced budget. Contrary to popular opinion Martin was not **smart** just **shifty**

10.If people are not happy with what Harper is suggesting for OAS benefits, then get off you butts and write him a letter.

11. Harbinger is right about his statements about Harpers ability to see past the next election. He is trying to do the right thing. Problem is we have to many, miscreants, malcontents, also rans, and ner do wells in this Country that are always looking for handouts.

12. I had an old friend who once said, that if you want Potatoes, then you better get yourself a shovel and start digging.

Number 7 on your list is the key in my mind Palupo – I do not plan on anything from the government for my retirement. If there is something there it will be a bonus, maybe Ill by wine with it ;-)

I agree sjm, many posts are interchanging OAS and CPP.
A complaint I have with this issue is the fact that 30 years of governments saw these shortfalls coming and failed to act. Actauries told Trudea on up that cpp was
unsustainable. However, that would be an issue down the road . Its bad politics to increase costs to voters and the boomers supported this through there working lives. In my mind that makes the boomers culpable and they must play a roll in making this fair and sustainable to all.

My solution would be to leave it at 65, and start the clawback much lower. A senior with $60,000 in income should not get any. Done. Many will complain they are entitled due to the fact they paid taxes.

That arguments won’t fly. The non-boomers are getting tired raising families in your generations wake. Financialy stable seniors should do whats right and take some of the responsibilty.

The Harper government lacks the ability to govern.

As soon as he gets a majority his true colors come out

First he passes the buck on healthcare in Canada by tieing the federal contribution to GDP. Mr Harper offers no solutions to the rising costs of healthcare as our population ages, and tells the provinces the rest of the financial burden rests with them.

Then his next “pass the buck” solution is to tell Canadians the OAS is unsustainable and he doesnt know how to fix it. So Mr Harper passes the problem onto Canadians 10 to 15 years down the road. He tells Canadians not to worry as you have 10 to 15 years to make adjustments to compensate for the changes he is going to make in OAS.
Why can’t Mr Harper use the same 10 to 15 years to make changes in the OAS to maintain OAS for future pensioners.

Great leadership from our “pass the buck” Prime Minister, very Republicanlike, punish those in society who are most vulnerable.

Well said Palopu. The U.S. did this years ago, anybody born 1960 and later will have to wait 2 extra years. They gave 20 years warning and Harper will give 12 or 13 years. It takes so very little off every cheque to have a comfortable retirement.People will spend hours on the internet and watching TV, but won’t educate themselves on their financial well-being. Not everybody is Wall St, there are lots of good reads out there.

Taxed out, you just pointed out why Harper was voted a majority, to try and make these programs sustinable for the long run. Healthcare, being provincial jurisdiction, now has a long term funding formula. I hope the provinces stop whining and and deal with their constitutional task.

The problem that I have with this fiasco is that Harper will more than likely SPEND that billion dollar savings on something that we do not need. Oh and I didn’t here about any wage cuts or pension freezes in the oval office. Maybe Harper and family should lead by example. Just an opinion.

Provincial or Federal it makes no difference to me, I pay anyway. Nice to see Federally we can expect no solutions to the problem.

His long term formula dow7500, did not address a single thing, all it did was make Harper’s contribution fixed with no solution offered.

Whether it is constitutional or not does nothing to fix any problems, like I said we pay anyway.

Not sure how passing the buck makes anything sustainable. All he did was make it someone else’s problem with the same taxpayer with the tab.

This posting is directly from an NDP mouth. Why get riled about anything they say? They don’t know diddly and their projections on any subject have always been wrong. I see nothing in the future to change that.

oval office?

Provincial or Federal it makes no difference to me, I pay anyway. Nice to see Federally we can expect no solutions to the problem.

His long term formula dow7500, did not address a single thing, all it did was make Harper’s contribution fixed with no solution offered.

Whether it is constitutional or not does nothing to fix any problems, like I said we pay anyway.

Not sure how passing the buck makes anything sustainable. All he did was make it someone else’s problem with the same taxpayer with the tab.

The whiners here would have us join Greece, Portugal, Italy, et. al.
This change to the OAS will likely affect me, but I am not going to whine (much) If they have to take steps to ensure an income supplement will be available to older people, so be it. As others have said, I wish that Mr. Harper, all MPs, and all Senators would lead by example, and reduce their own pensions from Platinum level down to gold plated. I also support the idea of reducing the maximum income from the $67,000 it is now to $60,000.
That alone would save millions in OAS that would not be paid out. Personally, I would not want to work another two years, or even to the age of 65. I always wanted to retire early but did not figure on CP or OAS to fund my retirement, so I saved money in order to have something of my own when the time came. Y’all should do the same. Any CP or OAS I might get will be a bonus, a very welcome bonus.
metalman.

Right again taxed out. Harper does fix the feds cost to a consistent formula for health care. It also provides consistant funding for the provinces. As far as the constitution, it is very clear it is the realm of the provinces. They need to fix the issue. Thats just the way it is. Like the recent court ruling the shot the feds down for trying to make a national securities regulator. It was provincial territory.

I’d like to say I agree with Metalman and Palopu 100%, but, I fear johnnybelt will pop up like a whack a mole and accuse me of stalking them. Good night.

I have paid in for 40 odd years so I guess I earned whatever I will get from CPP. Maybe beer parlor talk, but I understand there are hundreds of thousands of people in Canada getting and will get CPP or equivalent that never contributed. ie. immigrants, first nations and jail birds. Is this true or what…

It’s not true, so the answer is what.

CPP payments are as a direct result to what you put in. The more you contribute (to a maximum) the higher your pension when you retire. You can opt to start CPP at 60 now, but if you do, there is a percentage loss for each year that is less than 65 paid to you. If your pension would be 650/month at age 65 and you decided you retire and access it at 60 instead, they your pension would only be about half that. So there is an incentive, or a penalty if you will, for making sure you work until 65 if CPP is going to be a large portion of your retirement income.