Location: God's own country
Posted on: 27-01-12 12:30:02
Guys !
It was bound to happen.
Canada is letting in too many immigrants who are hooked on to $ 10 - $ 12 per hour jobs. White control the prime of all jobs but popuation has increased due to this. Averages are lowere then the highest pays. Children of immigrants enjoy the same standard of living in schools / hospitals etc... Cost for this has gone up where as tax $ donot make up for the increased spending.
Canada can still survive as long as it has oil (and we have oil like crazy). In the future, they will find out a way to extract the max. oil with or without damage to the environment and hence we may be well funded.
Till that time, they will try to cut / increase the cut off age for OAS and GIS. CPP will be the last on the list.
Imagine if oil went to $ 300 a barrel in the future. It will help us (Canada) immensely.
Till then bye.
Peace
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Gents and not a Ladies.
Better start investing in and training your kids. Be good to them for your own good old age :-)
Location: Somewhere in dreamland
Posted on: 28-01-12 08:47:54
Ottawa estimates the cost of OAS will rise from $36 billion in 2010 to $108 billion in 2030, while the number of taxpayers for every senior declines from four-to-one to two-to-one.
But as a slice of gross domestic product, or the size of the economy, OAS remains tiny. It will only increase from the current 1.8 per cent to 2.5 per cent in 20 years. Even when the Guaranteed Income Supplement is included, both programs will cost a total of 3.2 per cent of GDP in 2030.
C.D. Howe president Bill Robson, who has done extensive research on the pension issue, says OAS does not represent a \"huge affordability problem.\"
Yet he supports moving the age of eligibility back for all support programs, from pensions, to drug plans to when seniors must withdraw savings.
\"We're living so much longer now that we're getting close to the point where the average teacher for example, will live a fair number of years longer on benefits than (he/she) contributes to the plan,\" he explained.
Tyler Meredith of the Institute for Research on Public Policy disagrees that increasing the age of eligibility is the best way of reforming the system, saying it would hurt those most in need of the benefits.
The government could always increase the clawback of OAS benefits for more affluent retirees, or offer a bonus for working longer, as was done with the Canada Pension Plan. Both would result in savings for the government.
\"Raising the retirement age is probably the most blunt instrument the government has to deal with the issue,\" he said, \"because it's going to significantly affect individuals of low and modest income who rely on these benefits.
\"Canada has essentially done away with seniors poverty thanks to the creation of GIS and OAS over the last 30 and 40 years.\"
Location: Somewhere in dreamland
Posted on: 28-01-12 08:50:26
I think unless retirement age is tied to average life span based on race (east asian/white/south asian) - this law would be racist.
Most south asians have lesser life span than whites. Minorities will be the biggest losers with this change
Quote:
I think unless retirement age is tied to average life span based on race (east asian/white/south asian) - this law would be racist.
Most south asians have lesser life span than whites. Minorities will be the biggest losers with this change
I don't say you are wrong, but I would like to see statistics for this. Statistics which prove that South Asians living in Canada have a lesser life span than Caucasians.
Personally, I don't mind working until I am physically or mentally incapable to work. I have seen experiences where retirement has done more harm than good to person. And I always believe in living an independent life - not to be dependent on government for money or on caregivers for physical support.
Also, this will reduce the Canada's dependence on immigration. Main issue here is that is government capable enough to grow and maintain economic activity to keep both employment and inflation in check? How long till we are dependent on natural resources for economy? The government should spend money on R & D to be on technology forefront, esp for alternative energy and health services.
If lifespan of Canadian's have increased overall in last couple of decades, I do not see anything wrong with increasing the retirement age.
I do agree people should be working to keep them active until they are incapble to work but for minorities here, finding work after 50 yaers extemly difficult.
@ashedfc -- Your above post deserve to be made sticky under better Title !!
Thanks a lot for the info.
