On Feb 2, 2012, Diane Finley stated on Power and Politics, that the government had priorities other than pensions to pay for. Now that the government has sliced its obligations to healthcare, could we be so bold as to ask what these other priorities might be???
David Searle - 12 years ago
If this is to be done, it will have to be done over 20 years with much care, as anybody over 50 has been planning the end of their working careers with 65 in mind as part of the financial plan. Somebody in their 30's or even 40's will be able to adjust with 67 in mind.
John Peate - 12 years ago
There is no excuse for this and there is no economic justification. It is a further step in the neolib agenda that has been increasingly damaging all Western countries.
Since 1980, there has been this transference from the poor and the Middle Classes to the rich and the corporate world. Corporate tax cutting began with the "Capitalist" counter revolution in 1980 while the revenue burden was shifted to consumer taxes and those who bear the greatest burden of those - guess who.
It is economic nonsense that has led not only to the transference of the shares of the economic pie, but to lower growth as those who do spend their incomes have less to spend. It is a job killer not a creator.
How gullible can people be? We have been fed this propaganda since the mid 1970s and it is now deeply embedded in those who suffer most from it.
John - 12 years ago
I am 61 with bad arthritis and getting a very small pension with a bridge until 65, if this was instituted too quickly I would have trouble making ends meet. I believe many countries have similar changes but are spread in over up to 20 years to allow future recipients to plan accordingly. I have planned to be able to live comfortably based on what was available........Between this and the Tar Sands oil being sent through the fragile environment of Northern BC (Gateway) I am afraid that the party we voted in is not what we wanted, if either of these issues were discussed openly last year they would certainly not have a majority government. A lot of Conservative support comes from people in their 50's to 80's and will not do well for them in the next election, I could never vote for them again, I feel robbed of my rights as a Canadian , this WAS a democracy.
Alicia - 12 years ago
It's a little late to be deciding upon this issue now. The retirement age for babyboomers should have been raised 20 years ago to give them time to prepare. Sadly, because governments 20 years ago dragged their feet, we will be facing a major crisis shortly because the burden that will be placed on our country's finances will be crippling. If the age is raised, it should be raised slowly over time. For example:
for people born 1950-1954 raise retirement age to 65.5
for people born 1955-1959 raise retirement age to 66
for people born 1960-1964 raise retirement age to 66.5
for people born 1965-1969 raise retirement age to 67
for people born 1970-1974 raise retirement age to 67.5
for people born 1975-1979 raise retirement age to 68
for people born 1980-1984 raise retirement age to 68.5
for people born 1985-1989 raise retirement age to 69
for people born 1990-1994 raise retirement age to 69.5
for people born 1995-1999 raise retirement age to 70
for people born 2000-2004 raise retirement age to 70.5
for people born 2005-2009 raise retirement age to 71
It's not unreasonable to raise the age. Life expectancies have risen in the past century. Many babyboomers are not prepared for retirement as it is and if they had been given extra time to plan, many would not have done so anyway.
Eleanor Grant - 12 years ago
First, if they want to change it there must be lots of lead time, so people can plan. Not terrifying rumours dropped at an off-shore conference - that's really dirty.
Second, the Guaranteed Income Supplement must not be changed - but tonight on The National's At Issue panel, Peter Mansbridge said it's the supplement they're going to change. What IS going on?
Third, by keeping the OAS at such a low figure, they are effectively eliminating it anyway, by letting its value erode away.
Fourth, this is another way of dumping costs onto the provinces, who must keep people on social assistance and disability pensions two years longer - again, dirty.
If this were an honest public debate, I'd consider the pros and cons. However Harper is showing his usual contempt for Canadians. And he is also seeking to drive a wedge between seniors and younger workers.
John Peate - 12 years ago
It is ironic that Harper now feels safe enough to turn on the demographic that is responsible for inflicting this train wreck of a government on Canada. Had it not been for the seniors in Canada, Harper would probably have run third in the last election having only his oil buddies and the Christian evangelicals to support him.
He is rewarding both of those constituencies through the corporate tax reductions for the one and his regressive social legislation for the other. How a couple of million Seniors could not have seen this coming is beyond me. The other parties warned and promised to improve Pensions.
Perhaps now that the shock has arrived, some could, instead of just griping, contact the various Senior's Associations such as Carp and make Harper and Flaherty respond to the needs of the people not just his friends and financers. It would not be difficult.
It would put Canada back on a sounder economic path than the NeoLib course that Harper and Co. are now embarked on and that has always been their true agenda waiting for this unearned majority to implement it.
And, if enough Seniors tell CBC and other media outlets not to ask silly questions but to do their duty and hammer this 19th. century gang of thugs to prevent this travesty of justice and economic planning.
Kilby Snow - 12 years ago
It appears that we have made a big mistake voting in Mr. Harper, had no idea he would rip the country apart for large corporations and destroy the lives of most working Canadians. I'm 61 and have paid full taxes all my life with no deductions available, like the majority of us. Without the pension at 65 many lives will be affected. Whoever was responsible for promoting low interest rates, 40 and 35 year mortgages has a lot to do with encouraging many Canadians to take on debt they couldn't afford. With the impending housing crash (which even mainstream media now acknowledge is happening) Many who have erroneously invested in their homes, now, more than ever need that small extra to maintain a decent last 10 or 20 years of their lives. A good, meaningful reduction in the MP's pension plan ($1 from them, $23 from us) That is NOT slipped to them in other ways would be a good start. I am truly afraid for this Country.
Yvon Lebrun - 12 years ago
What a beautiful way for the government to reduce expenses and maybe some deserving souls will die before they collect. What about the young people waiting for promotions? Companies do not pay enough for people to put away for retirement. Executive salaries,bonuses and stock options prevent 50% of the base to plan for an acceptable and comfortable retirement. Retirement problems will multiply in 30 years if greed continues to breed in corporate Canada
Rod Draffin - 12 years ago
Leave OAS as is. Politicians pensions go up. Golden handshakes go up. Give us a break. If one makes more than the base level then the pension is clawed back and one doesn't get the pension or part of same. If you tinker with this you could be opening a door of more problems and more hardship on those who earned the right to OAS at 65 years.
chris andrews - 12 years ago
The OAS was developed when life expectancy for men was 70. It is now somewhere around 80 and I believe for the good of the system the age should be raised and phased in over a number of years e.g. from age 45 onwards.
I am 67 and am receiving the pensions and I worked very hard to contribute this all of my life. Where change should not take place is with immigrants - they need to be contributing for 10 years like the rest of us, not shortcutting the system to 3 years as was proposed. THAT takes money right out of the system and working Canadians are expected to make up that difference.
kitimatbillie - 12 years ago
harper why don't you raise the age to 100 then you could cut the tax to rich buddies & companies to zero
eric bohmann - 12 years ago
If all members parliment take there pension at the age of 67.SO WILL I.
Pepper - 12 years ago
There are a lot of Canadian's like us that are retired right now collecting a company pension with bridging to age 65. We loose the bridging and are expecting to collect our OAS to replace that. How can the Federal Government take that away from us? Mr. Harper should not raise the age for old age pension!!! I know Mr. Harper doesn't need the money from OAS when he retires but the majority of Canadian's do.
Bryan Rogers - 12 years ago
I would like the Government to step in and stop companies from underfounding private pensions . and then, down the road declare bankrupcy in Canada so that that don't have to pay the employees pension. Because that is what happened to me . And a host of others. And the big looser is the pensioner. People should be able to take co. pensions monthly and put them in a savings account until retirement. They should be commuterble from job to job. This way the companies cannot weasel out of paying. If a Co. cannot found your pension from the get go then they should not be in buisness. B. Brogers. Cambridge Ont.
Terry - 12 years ago
Why does Pierre the Parrot always have such a hard time speaking on his own? Can he not work without a script? And he has the nerve to denigrate OAS while he and his cohorts have this platinum pension awaiting them. Pierre, show us you can think for yourself and just venture out with an independent answer. A plain old answer is not the same as "making an announcement" on behalf of the Harper government, it's just an answer to a question. And quit throwing red herrings, like references to Greece, at us when we are talking about Canada and the Canadian way. You do remember the Canadian way don't you Pierre? I know it is different than the Harper way but, please, answer the questions!
On Feb 2, 2012, Diane Finley stated on Power and Politics, that the government had priorities other than pensions to pay for. Now that the government has sliced its obligations to healthcare, could we be so bold as to ask what these other priorities might be???
If this is to be done, it will have to be done over 20 years with much care, as anybody over 50 has been planning the end of their working careers with 65 in mind as part of the financial plan. Somebody in their 30's or even 40's will be able to adjust with 67 in mind.
There is no excuse for this and there is no economic justification. It is a further step in the neolib agenda that has been increasingly damaging all Western countries.
Since 1980, there has been this transference from the poor and the Middle Classes to the rich and the corporate world. Corporate tax cutting began with the "Capitalist" counter revolution in 1980 while the revenue burden was shifted to consumer taxes and those who bear the greatest burden of those - guess who.
It is economic nonsense that has led not only to the transference of the shares of the economic pie, but to lower growth as those who do spend their incomes have less to spend. It is a job killer not a creator.
How gullible can people be? We have been fed this propaganda since the mid 1970s and it is now deeply embedded in those who suffer most from it.
I am 61 with bad arthritis and getting a very small pension with a bridge until 65, if this was instituted too quickly I would have trouble making ends meet. I believe many countries have similar changes but are spread in over up to 20 years to allow future recipients to plan accordingly. I have planned to be able to live comfortably based on what was available........Between this and the Tar Sands oil being sent through the fragile environment of Northern BC (Gateway) I am afraid that the party we voted in is not what we wanted, if either of these issues were discussed openly last year they would certainly not have a majority government. A lot of Conservative support comes from people in their 50's to 80's and will not do well for them in the next election, I could never vote for them again, I feel robbed of my rights as a Canadian , this WAS a democracy.
It's a little late to be deciding upon this issue now. The retirement age for babyboomers should have been raised 20 years ago to give them time to prepare. Sadly, because governments 20 years ago dragged their feet, we will be facing a major crisis shortly because the burden that will be placed on our country's finances will be crippling. If the age is raised, it should be raised slowly over time. For example:
for people born 1950-1954 raise retirement age to 65.5
for people born 1955-1959 raise retirement age to 66
for people born 1960-1964 raise retirement age to 66.5
for people born 1965-1969 raise retirement age to 67
for people born 1970-1974 raise retirement age to 67.5
for people born 1975-1979 raise retirement age to 68
for people born 1980-1984 raise retirement age to 68.5
for people born 1985-1989 raise retirement age to 69
for people born 1990-1994 raise retirement age to 69.5
for people born 1995-1999 raise retirement age to 70
for people born 2000-2004 raise retirement age to 70.5
for people born 2005-2009 raise retirement age to 71
It's not unreasonable to raise the age. Life expectancies have risen in the past century. Many babyboomers are not prepared for retirement as it is and if they had been given extra time to plan, many would not have done so anyway.
First, if they want to change it there must be lots of lead time, so people can plan. Not terrifying rumours dropped at an off-shore conference - that's really dirty.
Second, the Guaranteed Income Supplement must not be changed - but tonight on The National's At Issue panel, Peter Mansbridge said it's the supplement they're going to change. What IS going on?
Third, by keeping the OAS at such a low figure, they are effectively eliminating it anyway, by letting its value erode away.
Fourth, this is another way of dumping costs onto the provinces, who must keep people on social assistance and disability pensions two years longer - again, dirty.
If this were an honest public debate, I'd consider the pros and cons. However Harper is showing his usual contempt for Canadians. And he is also seeking to drive a wedge between seniors and younger workers.
It is ironic that Harper now feels safe enough to turn on the demographic that is responsible for inflicting this train wreck of a government on Canada. Had it not been for the seniors in Canada, Harper would probably have run third in the last election having only his oil buddies and the Christian evangelicals to support him.
He is rewarding both of those constituencies through the corporate tax reductions for the one and his regressive social legislation for the other. How a couple of million Seniors could not have seen this coming is beyond me. The other parties warned and promised to improve Pensions.
Perhaps now that the shock has arrived, some could, instead of just griping, contact the various Senior's Associations such as Carp and make Harper and Flaherty respond to the needs of the people not just his friends and financers. It would not be difficult.
It would put Canada back on a sounder economic path than the NeoLib course that Harper and Co. are now embarked on and that has always been their true agenda waiting for this unearned majority to implement it.
And, if enough Seniors tell CBC and other media outlets not to ask silly questions but to do their duty and hammer this 19th. century gang of thugs to prevent this travesty of justice and economic planning.
It appears that we have made a big mistake voting in Mr. Harper, had no idea he would rip the country apart for large corporations and destroy the lives of most working Canadians. I'm 61 and have paid full taxes all my life with no deductions available, like the majority of us. Without the pension at 65 many lives will be affected. Whoever was responsible for promoting low interest rates, 40 and 35 year mortgages has a lot to do with encouraging many Canadians to take on debt they couldn't afford. With the impending housing crash (which even mainstream media now acknowledge is happening) Many who have erroneously invested in their homes, now, more than ever need that small extra to maintain a decent last 10 or 20 years of their lives. A good, meaningful reduction in the MP's pension plan ($1 from them, $23 from us) That is NOT slipped to them in other ways would be a good start. I am truly afraid for this Country.
What a beautiful way for the government to reduce expenses and maybe some deserving souls will die before they collect. What about the young people waiting for promotions? Companies do not pay enough for people to put away for retirement. Executive salaries,bonuses and stock options prevent 50% of the base to plan for an acceptable and comfortable retirement. Retirement problems will multiply in 30 years if greed continues to breed in corporate Canada
Leave OAS as is. Politicians pensions go up. Golden handshakes go up. Give us a break. If one makes more than the base level then the pension is clawed back and one doesn't get the pension or part of same. If you tinker with this you could be opening a door of more problems and more hardship on those who earned the right to OAS at 65 years.
The OAS was developed when life expectancy for men was 70. It is now somewhere around 80 and I believe for the good of the system the age should be raised and phased in over a number of years e.g. from age 45 onwards.
I am 67 and am receiving the pensions and I worked very hard to contribute this all of my life. Where change should not take place is with immigrants - they need to be contributing for 10 years like the rest of us, not shortcutting the system to 3 years as was proposed. THAT takes money right out of the system and working Canadians are expected to make up that difference.
harper why don't you raise the age to 100 then you could cut the tax to rich buddies & companies to zero
If all members parliment take there pension at the age of 67.SO WILL I.
There are a lot of Canadian's like us that are retired right now collecting a company pension with bridging to age 65. We loose the bridging and are expecting to collect our OAS to replace that. How can the Federal Government take that away from us? Mr. Harper should not raise the age for old age pension!!! I know Mr. Harper doesn't need the money from OAS when he retires but the majority of Canadian's do.
I would like the Government to step in and stop companies from underfounding private pensions . and then, down the road declare bankrupcy in Canada so that that don't have to pay the employees pension. Because that is what happened to me . And a host of others. And the big looser is the pensioner. People should be able to take co. pensions monthly and put them in a savings account until retirement. They should be commuterble from job to job. This way the companies cannot weasel out of paying. If a Co. cannot found your pension from the get go then they should not be in buisness. B. Brogers. Cambridge Ont.
Why does Pierre the Parrot always have such a hard time speaking on his own? Can he not work without a script? And he has the nerve to denigrate OAS while he and his cohorts have this platinum pension awaiting them. Pierre, show us you can think for yourself and just venture out with an independent answer. A plain old answer is not the same as "making an announcement" on behalf of the Harper government, it's just an answer to a question. And quit throwing red herrings, like references to Greece, at us when we are talking about Canada and the Canadian way. You do remember the Canadian way don't you Pierre? I know it is different than the Harper way but, please, answer the questions!