Canada’s overall population is older than ever. As more baby boomers retire in the coming years, policymakers will need to consider how they can meet the needs of an older population.
Sunil Johal | Professor in Public Policy and Society, University of Toronto
I’m more concerned about what a PP conservative government would take away from my kids.
The fact that his party still refuses to acknowledge the reality of climate change is a huge problem.
But far from the only one.
The party’s ongoing support for reversing support for LGBT folks, their leaning into criminal justice methods that have been provenrepeatedly not to work, their embracing of trickle down economic policies… there is a lot to not like about the party and its leader.
Argue all those points. Each one hits a different group, so cater your message to the group you’re talking to. Parents to the withdrawal of public school and daycare funding, climate change to young voters, the privatization of healthcare and how private healthcare is several times more expensive wherever public healthcare doesn’t exist to older people and those with illnesses like diabetes, the fact that they hate non-standard heteros for LGBT.
The Cons only exist for hypercapitalists, so simply tell people the thing that they’re worried about the most and how the Cons will actively hurt their greatest interest. They even hate resource workers, because despite Alberta being the richest province in the country, the people are some of the poorest because all the money gets taken away from the workers and put into the pockets of billionaires due to having some of the lowest tax rates in the country.
presently includes individuals with incomes over $140,000, and couples who have nearly $300,000.
This level of subsidy for affluent retirees is a perverse outcome of the ESDC failure to adapt OAS in response to other pension policy, and the rapid increase in housing wealth enjoyed by many seniors. We should now make up for lost time, because we live in an era when some people have real affordability concerns.
There are a bunch of people getting money they don’t need, and a bunch of people who need money aren’t getting enough.
Putting it in terms of “keep” vs “take away” shuts down conversation about a significant problem in Canada’s federal government.
Why is that a problem? OAS is taxable income. It’s essentially what a basic income program should look like. If the problem is that rich people exist, tax reform is the issue you should be looking at.
It doesn’t really though. The only problem it outlines is that it doesn’t pay a living wage. It says nothing about why it’s a problem that people with high incomes also get this (other than it’s unfair). It then suggests making it more complicated (increasing overhead) so that poor people can get more.
But it’s much simpler than that. Just pay everyone more. Make it an actual basic income at living wage, and adjust the tax brackets appropriately.
Then expand it to include everyone instead of just seniors.
It says nothing about why it’s a problem that people with high incomes also get this (other than it’s unfair).
That’s a pretty good reason. It’s using the income of taxpayers to subsidize seniors with above average income. Yes, about half of that is clawed back, but it’s a poor use of resources.
It then suggests making it more complicated (increasing overhead) so that poor people can get more.
Payouts are already scaled by income. Changing the scaling rates does not increase complexity, but it does improve fairness.
We should be making sure older people know Poilievre will try to take away their CPP and OAS. And privatize as much of their health care as he can.
I’m more concerned about what a PP conservative government would take away from my kids.
The fact that his party still refuses to acknowledge the reality of climate change is a huge problem.
But far from the only one.
The party’s ongoing support for reversing support for LGBT folks, their leaning into criminal justice methods that have been provenrepeatedly not to work, their embracing of trickle down economic policies… there is a lot to not like about the party and its leader.
Argue all those points. Each one hits a different group, so cater your message to the group you’re talking to. Parents to the withdrawal of public school and daycare funding, climate change to young voters, the privatization of healthcare and how private healthcare is several times more expensive wherever public healthcare doesn’t exist to older people and those with illnesses like diabetes, the fact that they hate non-standard heteros for LGBT.
The Cons only exist for hypercapitalists, so simply tell people the thing that they’re worried about the most and how the Cons will actively hurt their greatest interest. They even hate resource workers, because despite Alberta being the richest province in the country, the people are some of the poorest because all the money gets taken away from the workers and put into the pockets of billionaires due to having some of the lowest tax rates in the country.
All of the points I mention are among the ones that matter to me and my family personally.
And dental.
OAS is in desperate need of reform:
There are a bunch of people getting money they don’t need, and a bunch of people who need money aren’t getting enough.
Putting it in terms of “keep” vs “take away” shuts down conversation about a significant problem in Canada’s federal government.
Why is that a problem? OAS is taxable income. It’s essentially what a basic income program should look like. If the problem is that rich people exist, tax reform is the issue you should be looking at.
The link does a pretty good job describing the issue.
It doesn’t really though. The only problem it outlines is that it doesn’t pay a living wage. It says nothing about why it’s a problem that people with high incomes also get this (other than it’s unfair). It then suggests making it more complicated (increasing overhead) so that poor people can get more.
But it’s much simpler than that. Just pay everyone more. Make it an actual basic income at living wage, and adjust the tax brackets appropriately.
Then expand it to include everyone instead of just seniors.
That’s a pretty good reason. It’s using the income of taxpayers to subsidize seniors with above average income. Yes, about half of that is clawed back, but it’s a poor use of resources.
Payouts are already scaled by income. Changing the scaling rates does not increase complexity, but it does improve fairness.
Step one: stop Poilievre getting into power; Step two: actually solve the problem. Failure at step one makes step two moot.