CPI partial de-indexing. call an ace an ace

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/canadians-should-demand-a-debate-on-cpi-changes/article2337605/

The Globe and Mail has revealed that Statistics Canada has been quietly planning changes to the way it calculates its Consumer Price Index measure of inflation: something I warned about a year ago.

The technical details of these changes may only seem of interest to the pocket protector and calculator crowd, but the reality is they will affect all Canadians: from pensioners and hardhats to those wearing pinstripes.

------------------

D - and he WARNED us. Poor Cassandra... poor us. (MARCH 2011)
http://cupe.ca/updir/ECB_March_2011.pdf

Redefining inflation: who wins and who loses?
Canada’s inflation target is up for renewal and revision at
the end of this year. For the first time in twenty years, the federal
government could reduce the 2% inflation target down to 1%,
change the type of price target it uses, or even redefine how it
measures inflation. This would have major impacts on workers’
wages, social transfers, pensions and taxes. The changes may
not seem much on an annual basis, but they really add up over
time for people—and could provide billions in annual savings for
governments and employers.

----------------

The consumer price index is the single most important economic measure Statistics Canada produces. Hundreds of billions of dollars of pension payments, tax deductions, payments and credits are explicitly indexed to it in legislation and most workers wages are implicitly linked to it. Changes of a fraction of a per cent in the measurement of CPI could mean billions of dollars in annual savings for governments on one hand and lower incomes for pensioners, workers and taxpayers on the other.

The Bank of Canada estimated the CPI overstates inflation by 0.6 per cent a year because changes in the index don’t adjust as fast as consumers do to lower prices for goods or for improvements in ...

-------------

D - significance?

-------------

The impact may be relatively small initially, but it cumulates rapidly. For instance, a 0.6 percentage point reduction in Old Age Security payments would save the federal government $210-million in the first year, but almost $3-billion annually in ten years. Increased revenues from a 0.6 per cent lower increase in the basic personal amount for taxes would increase the federal government’s revenues by $180-million in the first year, but more than $2.5-billion annually in ten years. These are just two of the dozens of federal tax thresholds, deductions and credits that would be affected.

-------------------

D - meaning the impact increases rapidly as time goes on. In other words, while it just clips the Boomers, it hammers GenX.

D - maybe you are saying "rain falls on the good and bad alike", but look closer. We could have left the basic OAS payment with the existing inflation index- that would ensure no more poor seniors slip into poverty. We even could have de-indexed the clawback, a wonderfully PROGRESSIVE measure, while limiting spending increases. This would even have exempted the middle class, making it politically expedient and practically expedient.
Harper did no such thing. He did NOTHING to reduce overall senior poverty. He did NOTHING to remove lower-upper-class seniors from the OAS feeding trough. His policy is totally income-neutral. It most certainly is not PROGRESSIVE.
Well, there it is.
Gonna quote some song lyrics here. The Ramones.

Well, I just want to walk right out of this world,
'Cause everybody has a poison heart
I just want to walk right out of this world,
'Cause everybody has a poison heart.