The Government's Record on Seniors
As a result of actions taken to date by the Government, seniors and pensioners will receive $2.5 billion in additional targeted tax relief for the 2012–13 fiscal year. In particular, since 2006, the Government has:
- Increased the Age Credit amount by $1,000 in 2006 and by another $1,000 in 2009.
- Doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for the Pension Income Credit to $2,000.
- Introduced pension income splitting.
- Increased the age limit for maturing pensions and Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) to 71 from 69 years of age.
In 2012, a single senior can earn at least $19,542 and a senior couple at least $39,084 before paying federal income tax. As a result of actions taken since 2006, 380,000 seniors have been removed from the tax rolls.
In addition, the Government has strengthened the pillars of the retirement income system. The Government:
- Created a new Guaranteed Income Supplement top-up benefit for
- Increased, in Budget 2008, the amount that can be earned before the GIS is reduced to $3,500, so GIS recipients can keep more of their hard-earned money without any reduction in GIS benefits.
---------------
D - um, no. "Hard earned money"? Did they really toss that trite emotional hot button into a formal government summary of policy? Maybe it WAS hard earned. Maybe it was easily earned. But GIS is not a pension, so applies whether or not a senior worked hard (or a day in their life)!
So why don't we lose the social-psychology manipulative language, hmm?
D - but I DO approve of
The Next Phase of Canada’s Economic Action Plan outlines the Conservative plan to top up the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) for the most vulnerable seniors, providing additional annual benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples. Many low-income seniors are widowed women who have made valuable contributions to their families and communities, but may not have access to other sources of pension income.
-------------
D - that is just sad. The Liberals satirize the GIS top-up as "just $1.64 a day". Well, that was all that is required to remove seniors from poverty! More is extravagent waste. What the Liberals are saying is that they are even MORE in the Boomers' pocket than the Conservatives are. That's they'll steal from young Peter to give even more to old Paul. I'm so glad their party is dead. They've been on life support for most of my adult life- the voters finally decided to pull the plug.
---------------
D - there ARE a coupla problems with the federal gov't on senior poverty:
1) much fiscal program spending goes to well-to-do seniors in NO need of assistance.
2) all the kerfluffle a coupla decades back about child poverty has been quietly forgotten.
3) the income redistribution goes FROM working poor and TO retired affluent!
Thereby aggravating 2!!! I mean, WTF?
It's been 22 years since the House of Commons voted unanimously to eradicate child poverty in Canada by 2000. All parties supported the motion and it appeared that we were finally on the right track to ensuring that no child ever had to grow up hungry or homeless again. However, a new report from Campaign 2000 reveals that over two decades later 639,000 children are still living in poverty. That's one in 10 children.
Estimates currently say that poverty costs Canada a minimum of $24 billion a year, with 20 per cent of all health care costs directly attributed to poverty. Look at it this way, a child born into poverty has a greater chance of dying in infancy and, if he or she lives, is likely to have a lower birth weight and more disabilities. As they grow, they will suffer from poor nutrition and poor health. They'll miss more days of school and slowly, but surely, fall further and further behind at significant cost to society.
If we can solve the problem early, and prevent children from growing up in poverty in the first place, the savings both financially and in the quality of life they will go on to have will be dramatically increased.
----------
D - so think of anti-child-poverty measures as investment in both future productivity (to support all those on-the-pork-barrel-dole wealthy Boomer seniors) as well as in lowered health care costs (and prison et al).
D - and if ending senior poverty is so swell, why won't we do it for anybody else?
-------------
D - nice to see the #s nailed down so succintly.
Designed to provide a minimum income for seniors, OAS currently goes to more than 4.5 million Canadians. It is a flat-rate benefit payable to all individuals at age 65 who meet residency requirements. The maximum payment is $540.12 a month for recipients with less than $69,562 in annual net income. For those with higher incomes, payments are gradually clawed back, with the benefit eliminated at an income of $112,772. Current cost for the program is $29 billion out of a federal budget of $274 billion.
Low-income seniors who qualify for OAS may also receive additional support through the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The maximum GIS payment for a single individual is $732.36 a month. This costs the government $8.4 billion a year.
The Conservatives’ say OAS will become unaffordable in the long run as baby boomers retire and leave fewer working Canadians to carry the cost of federal programs. By 2030, OAS recipients are forecast to hit 9.3 million, with Ottawa’s bill for OAS and GIS rising to $108 billion.
---------
D - so OAS is already about 10% of the federal budget. THIS one, we gotta rein it.
D - we need a much more progressive clawback for OAS.
Create a progressive GIS clawback system, potentially improving the work and lifetime savings options for the poorest seniors who are able. For example, we could apply a 0 per cent clawback on the first $2,000 of income, 25 per cent on the next $2,000, 50 per cent on the next $2,000, and 75 per cent on any income above $6,000. I’m sure a better scheme could be derived, but this one would result in senior individuals having roughly $25,000 (including OAS) before being completely cut off from GIS.
------------
D - preventing senior poverty is totally within our fiscal means. BUT the present senior funding amounts to a regressive tax/fiscal policy combo. Poor young workers pay to plump up wealthy retiree incomes. That is disgusting and unforgivable.
This one (along with post-secondary funding), WE - genXYZ - gotta win. Or Gen Z will inherit the smoking ruins of what the Boomers will inflict, if Boomers are allowed to have their way.
No comments:
Post a Comment