Canada’s aging population: The unspoken ballot box issue (theconversation.com)

submitted 2 months ago by otters_raft@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sunil Johal | Professor in Public Policy and Society, University of Toronto

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] grey_maniac@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

Step one: stop Poilievre getting into power; Step two: actually solve the problem. Failure at step one makes step two moot.

[-] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] sbv@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

The link does a pretty good job describing the issue.

[-] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] sbv@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

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.