harper's age credit now causing deficit problems

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/flahertys-tax-credits-cost-ottawa-billions/article2296695/

Some of the changes that received little attention at the time are having a growing impact on federal revenues, the report shows.

For instance, two Conservative top-ups to the Age Credit have increased the annual cost of the deduction by 25 per cent, from $1.8-billion in 2006 to $2.26-billion in 2011. The tax credit for seniors used to apply to incomes of $57,377 or less. Now it can be claimed by seniors with incomes of up to $76,541.

----------

D - once again, this is a policy that is nominally anti-poverty. However it is primarily used by the middle class. A policy that the middle-class can use is only slightly more progressive than a universal one that exempts nobody.
For example, the LICO line - the 'relative poverty' line- is roughly $14,000 for a single person. I would not suggest trying to live in Toronto on that.
The Cdn. national average income is c. $25-30,000, depending on whether you include part-time jobs with full-time ones.
A progressive policy instead could have done the following:
1) Increase the deduction to 25% but
2) only for HALF the usual cap, so 76,541/2 so um c. $38,000.
Notice even this policy includes middle-middle class.
A very progressive policy would be the introduce income-tax bracket style tiers.
E.g.
1) 10% to $76, 541,
2) 20% to $38, 000, and
3) 30% to $17,000, which approximates the LICO Low Income Cutoff Line.
Watch CARP carefully. They blur the line between impoverished, poor and middle class seniors. The policy alternative above that I have proposed is, in theory, an anti-poverty one. But the NDP likes to generous with everyone - Merry Christmas, ho ho ho!
But that isn't socialist. It is just plain fiscally irresponsible.
The policy I have outlined would be pretty much revenue-neutral and would disproportionately benefit those few remaining impoverished seniors in Canada.
My heart does go out to them. I was impoverished for most of my young adulthood. But it is one thing for a young fit guy and quite another for somebody at the other end - the end of the line. A little extra compassion can be justified then.

-------------------
CARP diem! Seize that CARP! <:

D - I received a colourful flyer in my Globe and Mail weekend edition last week.
It advertised the Zoomer mag that CARP issues.
First of all, I'm pretty sure that vibrant and dynamic are synonyms.
There is a pitch for a free copy of Zoomer mag, and a reduced CARP membership fee with a subscription. I'm sure the converse is also true.
Inside there are three references to hot retiree sex - "great sex at any age", "how to get your sex life back on track" and "turn back the clock". One might assume they are lobbying to have Viagra included in the drug plans of provinces. After all, being Boomers, they are ENTITLED - period.

D - plus apparently their editors don't understand the difference between single and double quotation marks and their usage. Perhaps somebody ought to purchase them a copy of "Eats, Shoot and Leaves". (Yes, I know that period ought to be inside the second quotation mark. I don't like it there. Style...)
D - I'm really glad to hear they are concerned about age discrimination. Well, at least for retirees.

http://raisethehammer.org/article/609/stay_in_your_lane (see image chart)

D - And what do we see in this chart? That 20 and 75 year-old drivers are at about the same risk for car accidents. BUT. One of those groups can rent a car and one cannot. I really need some youth group and an ambitious lawyer to challenge the car rental companies on that one.
So, as you can see, CARP is not 'against (age-related) discrimination. They are against discrimination if the subject is OLD. That means that CARP is age-ist. They are ageists. (Agist?) Etymology, they are ageists espousing ageisms. Etymologically there are oldists espousing oldism. Oldist: "FOR old". And nobody else.
Not anti-poverty. And not more broadly (and ethically) anti-ageism. Oldist.