# Isn't GIS really just Welfare for us geezers?



## HermesHermes

What I don't understand is why 'Guaranteed Income Supplement' isn't just part of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation. I mean, let's be honest, what is it if not welfare where you don't even have to look for work? I will be eligible even though I didn't contribute in any direct way.

My grandfather worked hard all his life as a tradesman. He bought a house, raised a family and then when it came time for retirement he was mighty disappointed. The way he put it to me was: 'If you are poor you get welfare. If you are rich, you get tax write offs. But if you are lower middle class, there is nothing.' As a widower he gave away his assets so he could qualify for subsidized housing in some Rotary Club building.

He told me two other things, the first of which I ignored because I was sure I would be a millionaire by 35 and the second which I took to heart and followed to the letter:
1) "Plan for your retirement."
2) "Travel while you are young, Look at gramma and me, we started travelling at 67 and now we don't have the energy. Do it now."

So, now I am broke. But, ah, what a life I had living by the seat of my pants, operating a cash business in Canada and travelling in the winter, throughout my thirties and forties - Kashmir, Madagascar, Laos, Burma, Sikkim. 

The prospect of spending any more time in Canada than absolutely necessary is completely depressing. But I now will have to to pay for my indulgences. And work more in my old age than I did in my prime of life. BTW, if given my youth to do it all over again - I wouldn't change a thing!


----------



## Koogie

HermesHermes said:


> What I don't understand is why 'Guaranteed Income Supplement' isn't just part of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation. I mean, let's be honest, what is it if not welfare where you don't even have to look for work? I will be eligible even though I didn't contribute in any direct way.


You might want to double check your headline.

GIS ≠ GIC


----------



## sags

All these government programs should be replaced with a universal income for everyone.

The current system is a convoluted mess of a bunch of unrelated programs that people have to navigate and government has to administer.

A lot of jobs are going to be lost to technology and there is nothing to replace them.

Governments have to start preparing for a future jobless society and what that means for everyone.

The decline of unionism and the loss of DB pensions will have repercussions felt for many generations.

The end result is a lot of people dependent on government programs for their retirement.


----------



## james4beach

I'm in my 30s and everyone I know who is well off and comfortable in life has a job that is closely tied to or funded by government. Another way of saying this is, I am not aware of a single person (well one, Person F) who works in a purely private industry, who has a well paying job and is comfortable -- without government support

Person A: a manager in health care/hospital administration in Ontario ... heavily govt funded industry.
Person B: university professor ... obviously govt funded
Person C: a whole bunch of my friends at hydroelectric utilities, crown corporations - provincially funded
Person D: some federal govt employees I know
Person E: Bay Street, whose industry was bailed out and is totally back stopped by federal government: corporate welfare

Person F: the only exception, an engineer in his 60s who runs his own consulting business, though I bet if we looked into his client list, there'd be a lot of government funded money there too

My own job in the US, very well paying, is also heavily government subsidized. I'm virtually a US govt employee.


----------



## Eder

By your definition the government is funding the job of crack dealer as federal programs ensure scarcity of the pushers product artificially driving up profits.


----------



## james4beach

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with government funding. My own job is government funded. Would you _not_ call the jobs I listed as being heavily supported by govt?


----------



## james4beach

To me, a non government job is one where (1) income or primary funding does not directly come from government and (2) government does not back stop or directly assist the industry.

Check those two boxes, and I'll call someone a private sector employee.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> All these government programs should be replaced with a universal income for everyone.
> 
> The current system is a convoluted mess of a bunch of unrelated programs that people have to navigate and government has to administer.
> 
> A lot of jobs are going to be lost to technology and there is nothing to replace them.
> 
> Governments have to start preparing for a future jobless society and what that means for everyone.
> 
> The decline of unionism and the loss of DB pensions will have repercussions felt for many generations.
> 
> The end result is a lot of people dependent on government programs for their retirement.


I agree things like OAS and GIS should be replaced with a universal minimum income for everyone, not just age and means tested. Both GIS and OAS are perverse in their application to seniors only. Too much OAS is going to rich seniors and GIS wouldn't pay the rent. All that money could be way more fairly allocated.

I don't lament the decline of unionism nor DB pensions. Employers should not be in the social welfare business. They need to stay competitive to stay in business in this country. Society is much better off with 1 million jobs at $20/hr than 10 jobs at $30/hr. What needs to happen is for more gov't support of things like a national drug plan aka New Zealand (to supplement the current health care plan) to help maintain a healthy population, more and better day care subsidization to permit hard working families to better keep their heads above water, and less consumerism (no one needs the latest smartphone or similar technology).


----------



## Eder

james4beach said:


> To me, a non government job is one where (1) income or primary funding does not directly come from government and (2) government does not back stop or directly assist the industry.
> 
> Check those two boxes, and I'll call someone a private sector employee.


As I said, by your definition everyone is a government subsidized employee, even the crack dealer on Hastings Street.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

HermesHermes said:


> ... As a widower he gave away his assets so he could qualify for subsidized housing in some Rotary Club building....


And he didn't consider this to be "gaming the system?"


----------



## OhGreatGuru

HermesHermes said:


> ... But, ah, what a life I had living by the seat of my pants, operating a cash business in Canada and travelling in the winter, throughout my thirties and forties - ...


By "operating a cash business" I presume you mean you worked under the table and paid no taxes or CPP? And now I am supposed to pay for your GIS? I think I should forward your post to CRA.


----------



## AltaRed

OhGreatGuru said:


> By "operating a cash business" I presume you mean you worked under the table and paid no taxes? And now I am supposed to pay for your GIC? I think I should forward your post to CRA.


Can't believe anyone would actually say that kind of 'true' thing publicly. It's the ultimate in anti-social behaviour and moral conscience.


----------



## wraphter

AltaRed said:


> Can't believe anyone would actually say that kind of 'true' thing publicly. It's the ultimate in anti-social behaviour and moral conscience.


Sometimes the employers want to pay cash. nannies caregivers, jobs like that. poor people trying to survive is all.

CEOs? they are worth it? Primary qualification is being a ruthless psychopath. Research says so.Con artists,
manipulators


----------



## wraphter

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-are-psychopaths-australian-study-finds/



> An Australian study has found that about one in five corporate executives are psychopaths – roughly the same rate as among prisoners.
> 
> The study of 261 senior professionals in the United States found that 21 per cent had clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits. The rate of psychopathy in the general population is about one in a hundred.
> 
> Nathan Brooks, a forensic psychologist who conducted the study, said the findings suggested that businesses should improve their recruitment screening.
> 
> He said recruiters tend to focus on skills rather than personality features and this has led to firms hiring “successful psychopaths” who may engage in unethical and illegal practices or have a toxic impact on colleagues.
> 
> “Typically psychopaths create a lot of chaos and generally tend to play people off against each other,” he said.


----------



## mrPPincer

wraphter said:


> Sometimes the employers want to pay cash. nannies caregivers, jobs like that. poor people trying to survive is all.


^I agree. Most of the work I've done in my more industrious years when I worked multiple jobs day and night paid cash.
I was unable to pay into CPP because proving that I earned the income was too onerous to be worth the trouble (I did look into it).

Unlike the OP however I saved a large portion of the meager income I made (through frugality and a spartan lifestyle) and was able to go into semi-retirement after an injury at 40, w/o any gov't assistance at all btw).

But like the OP I will likely qualify for GIS because CPP payment will be very low and I have no other pension at all due to working only in the private sector (except for my time in the armed forces, but those pension payments were returned to me in cash after my contract was complete).
I think it's fair. I've done a hell of a lot of heavy manual labour and my body has paid a price as well due to wear and tear and injuries that no CEO has ever had to pay.

And being paid in cash also means there's no worker's comp or anything like that. It means living off saved cash and dipping into the line of credit until you heal up.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

HermesHermes said:


> ... I will be eligible even though I didn't contribute in any direct way....


You may not be as eligible as you think. See my posts on your other thread.

Your posts are a bit irrational. You start by complaining about GIS being welfare, but then state you plan to collect it.


----------



## mrPPincer

sags said:


> *All these government programs should be replaced with a universal income for everyone.
> 
> The current system is a convoluted mess of a bunch of unrelated programs that people have to navigate and government has to administer.*
> 
> A lot of jobs are going to be lost to technology and there is nothing to replace them.
> 
> Governments have to start preparing for a future jobless society and what that means for everyone.
> 
> The decline of unionism and the loss of DB pensions will have repercussions felt for many generations.
> 
> The end result is a lot of people dependent on government programs for their retirement.


(bolding mine)

I think the idea makes a lot of sense, but selling it to the taxpayer would be tough.
Even though it would be simpler and easier to administrate than our current dog's breakfast of programs.

Personally I think the lower income tiers are where economic stimulation should occur, because it immediately starts working it's way through the entire economy right to the top.
Keeps the wheels turning, especially during a downturn.

But people in the higher tax brackets are understandably naturally averse to the concept even though imho it would probably work out in their favour long term.


----------



## like_to_retire

OhGreatGuru said:


> By "operating a cash business" I presume you mean you worked under the table and paid no taxes or CPP? And now I am supposed to pay for your GIS? I think I should forward your post to CRA.


Yeah, when I pay my marginal rate of 46%, I don't have a lot of sympathy or support for those that illegally pay 0%. If everyone paid their required taxes, perhaps taxes would go down. I'm sure there's a huge laundry list of excuses of why people don't pay their required taxes, but it never resonates with me for sure.

ltr


----------



## mrPPincer

ltr I fully understand your sentiment. I know many people that were in that tax bracket and most of them feel the same.

fwiw, for myself, I did claim my cash income under 'other income', line 104 I think it is, on the tax return, and pencilled in 'casual labour'.

Still was unable to pay into CPP though, on that income.


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> I'm in my 30s and everyone I know who is well off and comfortable in life has a job that is closely tied to or funded by government. Another way of saying this is, I am not aware of a single person (well one, Person F) who works in a purely private industry, who has a well paying job and is comfortable -- without government support ...


Is there an age limitation at play here?



Person A, B, C & D: managers for publicly trade, non-bailed out companies.
Person E: university professor ... obviously govt funded
Person F, G & H: plumbers, brick layers, electricians 
Person I, J, K & H: management consultants/partners (they have only talked about working for publicly traded companies like Loblaws for the last five years but I am sure there's gov't work in there as well)
Person I: architects (would need to get their list as like the management consultants, there is both public and private).


BTW ... the furnace technician said the money was good but he felt he'd picked the wrong career so he was asking questions about getting into computers/programming.


Cheers


----------



## HermesHermes

Koogie said:


> You might want to double check your headline.
> 
> GIS ≠ GIC


I stand corrected. Thank you. I tried to change the subject but did not see a way to do that.


----------



## HermesHermes

SAGS

What are DB pensions?

I am sure I agree with you on some things you wrote. Certainly the system is very convoluted. It is like something out of the British comedy 'Yes, Minister!' 

I am looking for work in this difficult period between 60 and 65 where I am less employable but too young to go on the retirement dole. I am in fact on welfare. Have been for a few months. I am not proud of this. I have multiple chronic health issues but none serious enough to get disability. I want to at least get a part-time job but there are financial disincentives to do so.

Yes, applying for this and that program is inefficient. I have to get an office desk just to keep all the applications, faxes, letters, emails and scans of documents. I am pretty much 'on the ball' but if someone had MCI setting in, well they will miss the gravy because they just don't know about it. In the late 1970s there were all sorts of advocates helping seniors.

Beggars can't be choosers but there must be a better way.

My choice would be different than yours - for one, a flat income tax requiring no lawyers and accountants. I find it strange that the government takes away with one hand (GST) then hands it back with the other (tax refund). What occurred? Someone was paid to do this. No corporate welfare either. No monopoly corporations like ICBC (a corporation is now issuing driver's licenses and they don't even do eye tests!), and HIBC (illegal for me to hire a doctor). 

There are some anomalies too. I find it very strange that own can own a 2 million dollar house, a Mercedes and still get GIS. Am I wrong here? GIS is based on income not assets, right?

I can see the attraction for State socialist system as in some Northern European countries (downside - very expensive) or the market economy system of the USA (downside, poor people die). But Canada is neither fish nor fowl. My second biggest concern (never mind my major one for now) is national debt due to interest on the money supply paid to private banks. Nobody notices that major contribution to the national debt and how that affects less public money for other programs. Not a single political party is addressing this issue. I do not know the solution and even if I did know, nobody is going to listen to me anyway. 

Personally I dsilike big unions. The staff at the nursing home' my mother lives in gets their positions from seniority in the huge system rather than within the facility. There are great and poor workers but there is no community or family in-put for who gets promoted or fired. The nurses' union has an expensive public relations campaign of how they are so concerned about healthcare. I think lining their own pockets is more like it. Everyone looks out for their own self-interest. I just don't like the insincerity.

All I can do is arrange put my affairs in order, trying to make my way in the world.


----------



## HermesHermes

Crack dealer commenter: I believe you are correct. Some input from an economist please.


----------



## HermesHermes

OhGreatGuru said:


> And he didn't consider this to be "gaming the system?"


Indeed he did consider it taking advantage. He gave away his wealth to his daughters.


----------



## HermesHermes

OhGreatGuru said:


> By "operating a cash business" I presume you mean you worked under the table and paid no taxes or CPP? And now I am supposed to pay for your GIS? I think I should forward your post to CRA.


Actually I earned so little that no taxes were due. My understanding is that one need not file income taxes unless one earns over X dollars. Remember I was working only 8-10 months of the year in a manual labour business. I wasn't a heroin dealer. Not even growing cannabis. I did honest legal work. I didn't collect welfare. I earned my income. 

I once called and asked CRA if I owed them any money. They told me that they owed me money but because they hadn't heard from me for so long they cancelled issuing me anything. 

I didn't like complicated record keeping or signing forms. But most of it was political ideology. My attitude was 'I don't ask for anything from the government, stay out of my life.' I refused to even get provincial health insurance because I objected to the monopoly. In fact, what with my meagre income and expenses operating a cash business (supplies, advertising etc) I would have actually gotten tax *refunds*. And benefitted my retirement certainly. My principles of being a freeman, a sovereign individual, not a a cog in the corporate or State machinery - well, it worked against me. 

The reality is that due to not contributing to CPP except in my youth, I will get basically no CPP. My own fault.

It raises questions as to what will the effect of geezer welfare programs be. Why will a person work hard, save their money if at 65 they can get $1400+ per month to live on because they didn't? Not a lot of money to live in Canada but plenty to live in third world.

Am I consistent? No. Have my political principles changed? Yes, modified anyway. Due to age and experience,


----------



## mrPPincer

HermesHermes said:


> Crack dealer commenter: I believe you are correct. Some input from an economist please.


You lazy, p-o-s, parasite loser a-hole. As you may guess I am offended.
I can only assume the above was directed at me, heh, after my attempt to stand on your side of the discussion.

Crack dealer, hah.
I have never once bought nor sold nor ever used crack.
I have once fallen in love with an ex-crack-head ex-whore in the past and tried to make a life with her in the past which is why this is a touchy issue with me.

It lasted 9.5 years.
In that time I've tried to extricate her from bad scenerios a number of times.
I've travelled across this country to kick down doors for her.
I've had fistfights with crack dealers and crackheads on her behalf, but after strike three she was out, this was my decision.

Calling me a crack dealer simply because you can't imagine a worker making it outside of the parameters of the law is offensive to me.

I did it, and I did it in the construction industry, the military, the forestry industry, and the agricultural industry, all through hard physical work and determination.

You want an economist to verify my thoughts? I'm sure any number of well educated fools will be happy to share an opinion.

My thoughts?
I'm now with the rest, gtf off my forum a-hole, I have no use for a parasite like you


----------



## HermesHermes

AltaRed said:


> Can't believe anyone would actually say that kind of 'true' thing publicly. It's the ultimate in anti-social behaviour and moral conscience.


Which do you find morally reprehensible -- the threat of reporting or the reality of the shadow economy?


----------



## HermesHermes

mrPPincer said:


> You lazy, p-o-s, parasite loser a-hole. As you may guess I am offended.
> I can only assume the above was directed at me, heh, after my attempt to stand on your side of the discussion.
> 
> Crack dealer, hah.
> I have never once bought nor sold nor ever used crack.
> I have once fallen in love with an ex-crack-head ex-whore in the past and tried to make a life with her in the past which is why this is a touchy issue with me.
> 
> It lasted 9.5 years.
> In that time I've tried to extricate her from bad scenerios a number of times.
> I've travelled across this country to kick down doors for her.
> I've had fistfights with crack dealers and crackheads on her behalf, but after strike three she was out, this was my decision.
> 
> Calling me a crack dealer simply because you can't imagine a worker making it outside of the parameters of the law is offensive to me.
> 
> I did it, and I did it in the construction industry, the military, the forestry industry, and the agricultural industry, all through hard physical work and determination.
> 
> You want an economist to verify my thoughts? I'm sure any number of well educated fools will be happy to share an opinion.
> 
> My thoughts?
> I'm now with the rest, gtf off my forum a-hole, I have no use for a parasite like you


Sir, my apologies. You misunderstood. Poor grammar on my part. No, what I meant is crack dealer *comment.* Or 'commenter on the crack dealer'. Or perhaps more accurately 'commenter on the crack dealer comment'. I was not attacking you. Not at all.

Of course you are not nor ever were a retailer or wholesaler in prohibited substances. I meant that I have no issue with people selling recreational drugs if they operate their business ethically (no fraud, theft or coercion). After all, for better or worse, the government is in the alcohol and tobacco business. My point was I agree with you. Unless you were being facetious, in which case I don't. The issue of hard versus soft drugs of course is a grey area.

For the record, I should have directed my agreement to poster EDER, who wrote... "As I said, by your definition everyone is a government subsidized employee, even the crack dealer on Hastings Street."

BTW, while we are on the subject of Hastings street -- tasty wholesome hot meals at Carnegie Centre for cheap. Hastings and Main. You might surprised how many office workers and students dine there among the rummies. Oops, I suppose looking at the skinny people of 40 years of age who look 70, with their teeth falling out and strange behaviour, it is not alcohol that is being overused, but amphetamines. Never figured out why we have safe injection sites but not bars for free beer.

Is strong drug use a problem in other major metro areas of Canada also? My guess is most of it goes on in the privacy of living rooms of the suburbs.


----------



## mrPPincer

Apologies as well, I should never have said gtf off the forum a-hole when what I probably had meant to have said was get your parasite *** the eff outa my country. My bad.

You are ofc always welcome to speak your thoughts on this forum or any other.



> Of course you are not nor ever were a retailer or wholesaler in prohibited substances


Of course.. why, did somebody say something otherwise??


----------



## HermesHermes

"Of course.. why, did somebody say something otherwise??"

Ah, you? "I have never once bought nor sold nor ever used crack."

Therefore, it looked to me as if you were saying that you thought I had written something that implied that.

We can agree to disagree on contentious points. I didn't come here to start a fight. Again, apologies for my poor writing.

I won't respond to the comment about Canada not being my country.


----------



## lonewolf :)

sags said:


> All these government programs should be replaced with a universal income for everyone.
> 
> The current system is a convoluted mess of a bunch of unrelated programs that people have to navigate and government has to administer.
> 
> A lot of jobs are going to be lost to technology and there is nothing to replace them.
> 
> Governments have to start preparing for a future jobless society and what that means for everyone.
> 
> The decline of unionism and the loss of DB pensions will have repercussions felt for many generations.
> 
> The end result is a lot of people dependent on government programs for their retirement.


 We have to many sneaking across the boarder already for free benefits in Canada. The reason we are losing manufacturing jobs is not mainly from cheaper wages over seas it from politicians wanting to get elected by taxing business, increase in minimum wage & making rules & regulations so they can steal from the productive & give to the unproductive. 

Would you rent a house from a land lord that was able to raise your rent any time the landlord wanted to spend more money? How can any business plan be made when the government changes the rules, increases taxes or make you pay your employees more to get elected? 

When country guarantees to a business that their taxes wont rise for 20 years wont change rules & regulation a business plan can be developed. In North America with elections every 4 years why even start a business when the government changes the rules by how much employees have to be paid, tax the productive & all kinds of rules & regulations. 

The unintended consequences of having people dependent on the government instead of being productive would be to steal from the productive to give to the lazy enabled leach. 

Each rabbit, each fox, each wolf provides for its own life or is granted no life @ all. In this mania no one wants to take responsibility for they think it is their right for someone else to pay for their education, their house, food etc as long as someone else is paying for it it is all good. Who promised everyone all these rights? The problem today is people are confusing rights with freedom.


----------



## Daniel A.

Yes GIS is a form of welfare. I personally think it should be changed to consider assets someone with a million dollars in the bank can collect it. 

Over the next ten years the number of people collecting will go up when people retire with just CPP, OAS, I know there are people that truly need the help and may have struggled all their working lives just getting by.

I don't see why my tax dollars should go to people that have major assets.


----------



## sags

It does seem wonky that people owning valuable assets should collect GIS, but when Harper floated a trial balloon on considering assets for GIC qualification there was a thunderous hue and cry that forced them to rapidly retreat from the notion. I don't see politicians eagerly jumping into it again soon...........if ever.

The good news is that OAS/GIS costs are not as bad as it may appear or some allege. 

An actuarial study showed how durable the benefit actually is due to taxation, inflation and economic growth.

I believe the same consideration may be applied to a universal income.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/lets-debate-oas-based-on-fact-not-perception/article544494/


----------



## mrPPincer

HermesHermes said:


> Sir, my apologies. You misunderstood. Poor grammar on my part. No, what I meant is crack dealer *comment.* Or 'commenter on the crack dealer'. Or perhaps more accurately 'commenter on the crack dealer comment'. I was not attacking you. Not at all.
> 
> Of course you are not nor ever were a retailer or wholesaler in prohibited substances. I meant that I have no issue with people selling recreational drugs if they operate their business ethically (no fraud, theft or coercion). After all, for better or worse, the government is in the alcohol and tobacco business. My point was I agree with you. Unless you were being facetious, in which case I don't. The issue of hard versus soft drugs of course is a grey area.
> 
> For the record, I should have directed my agreement to poster EDER, who wrote... "As I said, by your definition everyone is a government subsidized employee, even the crack dealer on Hastings Street."
> 
> BTW, while we are on the subject of Hastings street -- tasty wholesome hot meals at Carnegie Centre for cheap. Hastings and Main. You might surprised how many office workers and students dine there among the rummies. Oops, I suppose looking at the skinny people of 40 years of age who look 70, with their teeth falling out and strange behaviour, it is not alcohol that is being overused, but amphetamines. Never figured out why we have safe injection sites but not bars for free beer.
> 
> Is strong drug use a problem in other major metro areas of Canada also? My guess is most of it goes on in the privacy of living rooms of the suburbs.


You're right, I misunderstood, way upthread Eder was responding to something James4 said, and you were responding to Eder's comments, not mine. The other thread you have running re pros & cons of maintaining a residence here, & opinions in it on whether or not you're trying to game the system may have added to the confusion. Sorry.

I wish you well.

re your comment . safe injection sites vs free beer sites, that's absurd as you must know.
For one, nobody is giving meth-heads free drugs at the safe injection sites. 
It's about keeping people alive and finding a way towards healing.


----------



## HermesHermes

*I actually agree with you. I am not proud of asking for a handout*



lonewolf :) said:


> We have to many sneaking across the boarder already for free benefits in Canada. The reason we are losing manufacturing jobs is not mainly from cheaper wages over seas it from politicians wanting to get elected by taxing business, increase in minimum wage & making rules & regulations so they can steal from the productive & give to the unproductive.
> 
> Would you rent a house from a land lord that was able to raise your rent any time the landlord wanted to spend more money? How can any business plan be made when the government changes the rules, increases taxes or make you pay your employees more to get elected?
> 
> When country guarantees to a business that their taxes wont rise for 20 years wont change rules & regulation a business plan can be developed. In North America with elections every 4 years why even start a business when the government changes the rules by how much employees have to be paid, tax the productive & all kinds of rules & regulations.
> 
> The unintended consequences of having people dependent on the government instead of being productive would be to steal from the productive to give to the lazy enabled leach.
> 
> Each rabbit, each fox, each wolf provides for its own life or is granted no life @ all. In this mania no one wants to take responsibility for they think it is their right for someone else to pay for their education, their house, food etc as long as someone else is paying for it it is all good. Who promised everyone all these rights? The problem today is people are confusing rights with freedom.


As far as the people sneaking over the border, I can tell you this from direct observation at food banks at two in GVRD that a third of recipients are speaking Farsi or Arabic. My worry is they appear to have large families and don't look like they are going to integrate soon. I met one guy, from Libya actually, who was wearing expensive jewellery and complaining about little things in food and employment. He had a real sense of entitlement, very bitter. Most locals, including the drug addicts and mentally ill were appreciative and polite. Of course, to not paint with too broad a brush most of those from Iran, Afghanistan, Syria etc were well-behaved. I have read that they get more on refugee entitlements than I do on welfare. Whatever.

I went looking at some subsidized housing in my neighbourhood. A third of the names were, how shall I put this -- they were not Punjabi and Chinese, two immigrant groups (with the exception of BC's Khalistan movement) are very productive and an asset to BC. 

Observing current events, having read the scriptures for contrasts, and knowing history (including the history of religion, my specialty) I am very concerned with the radically changing demographics in Canada. I fully expect a large-scale jihadi attack within 2 years. It only takes one from among 25,000 not carefully vetted. 

But what gets my goat is the RCMP and churches welcoming the *illegal* arrivals with open arms. I know what citizens groups do in Arizona. They stop them at the border.

Regarding operating a business in BC, I expect it is like Bangladesh. The gov't there makes the taxes so high and the rules so complicated that everybody tries to work under the table. If I tried to operate my little one and occasionally two-man business, following all the Worker's Comp rules, deductions for my helper, business licenses etc I would never had gotten off the ground. I knew a guy who operated a health food store and they had to put in two sinks and a water heater to offer tea. They couldn't afford it. Another guy had a healthfood store in Alberta and they got raided as the rules changed about what they could sell. I don't smoke pot but once went to meet a friend who does at Vansterdam Cafe in downtown Vancouver. They had installed an expensive looking system to purify the air a room for smokers -- but just tobacco. Everyone in the cafe was smoking cannabis freely. It was a 'joke'. You can more easily grow and smoke pot than operate a bar or restaurant with all the arcane rules and 'discretion' of enforcement of alcohol inspectors. And there is this huge push that marijuana is some sort of panacea. I think drug enforcement is a huge waste of police resources, but 'medical marijuana'? Come on, just admit you want to get high. No shame in that. Does it have pain-reduction uses? Yes, but the extent of that is a farce.

I do not have a good opinion of government. But yes, now I have my hand out.


----------



## gibor365

> I don't see why my tax dollars should go to people that have major assets.


 and I don't see why my tax dollars should go to lazy Canadians who wasn't able to save any pension or who wasted all their money on BS (that I see everyday)


----------



## gibor365

> I can tell you this from direct observation at food banks at two in GVRD that a third of recipients are speaking Farsi or Arabic. .


 Wouldn't be surprised if Canada will be called Canadian Emirates in 40-50 years from now 



> My worry is they appear to have large families and don't look like they are going to integrate soon


Sooner they will integrate you that "are going to integrate"


----------



## like_to_retire

gibor365 said:


> .....and I don't see why my tax dollars should go to lazy Canadians who wasn't able to save any pension or who wasted all their money on BS (that I see everyday)


Exactly. Spend a lifetime working hard, doing without, and putting away for retirement so that I can pay outrageous taxes to people who didn't?

But then, isn't that the very definition of socialism. _Take money from those that earn it and give it to those that don't._

ltr


----------



## gibor365

like_to_retire said:


> Exactly. Spend a lifetime working hard, doing without, and putting away for retirement so that I can pay outrageous taxes to people who didn't?
> 
> But then, isn't that the very definition of socialism. _Take money from those that earn it and give it to those that don't._
> 
> ltr


socialism - this is where Liberal Canada is heading . I know many Canadians (not immigrants ), who is not saving, buying luxary stuff etc ... they don't care, as they know that Liberals gonna take huge taxes from frugal , hard-working people and handle to them in form of GIS and similar



> I personally think it should be changed to consider assets someone with a million dollars in the bank can collect it.


 You talking like those people found this million on the doorsteps . Most likely they were working around a clock and under stress and saving.... 
I'm LOL when I hear about so called "less fortunate" people ....meaning thise who didn't want to study and to work?! (and I'm not talking about handicaped ones)


----------



## Daniel A.

gibor365 said:


> socialism - this is where Liberal Canada is heading . I know many Canadians (not immigrants ), who is not saving, buying luxary stuff etc ... they don't care, as they know that Liberals gonna take huge taxes from frugal , hard-working people and handle to them in form of GIS and similar
> 
> You talking like those people found this million on the doorsteps . Most likely they were working around a clock and under stress and saving....
> I'm LOL when I hear about so called "less fortunate" people ....meaning thise who didn't want to study and to work?! (and I'm not talking about handicaped ones)


The fact is homes were affordable at one time no one had to work around the clock under stress !! The cost of owning compared to renting was very close.
I know people that are sitting on million dollar homes bought twenty years ago for less than 200,000.00 they got lucky in a hot market and never saved beyond the house.

The other issue I have with GIS is there are people out there that could not afford to take CPP early with a 40% reduction but feel that's fine it just means more from GIS. GIS should be adjusted for the early taking of CPP.


----------



## sags

You don't like any part of "socialism" Gibor ?

It seems like "capitalism' has worked out well for the top 10% and everyone else is struggling.


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> You don't like any part of "socialism" Gibor ?
> 
> It seems like "capitalism' has worked out well for the top 10% and everyone else is struggling.


No, I don't. I lived enough 23 years under socialism


----------



## sags

Wasn't it "communism" you lived under ? 

I think of socialism as sharing the cost of common needs, while still maintaining the dignity and rewards of work.

A balance that needs adjusting from time to time.


----------



## sags

I look at the US as the world's example of the most purely capitalist society.

And what does it look like........

Social Security going bankrupt. Medicare going bankrupt. 1 in 5 families on food stamps, massive debt......and the rich get richer.

I like Canada's balance of socialism and capitalism a lot more. Not perfect...........but closer to perfection.


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> Wasn't it "communism" you lived under ?
> 
> I think of socialism as sharing the cost of common needs, while still maintaining the dignity and rewards of work.
> 
> A balance that needs adjusting from time to time.


No . It was "developed socialism" , communism was just a goal 

And what you describing is good only in theory or in Israeli's kibbutzim 



> Social Security going bankrupt. Medicare going bankrupt. 1 in 5 families on food stamps, massive debt......and the rich get richer.


 and in Canada?! CPP goes bankrupt. OHIP is a disaster (you want fast service and will to pay - go to US or Cuba). 15% of Canadians are poor....even though taxes are ridiculously high


----------



## Daniel A.

I really like your last two comments sags.


----------



## Nelley

gibor365 said:


> No . It was "developed socialism" , communism was just a goal
> 
> And what you describing is good only in theory or in Israeli's kibbutzim
> 
> and in Canada?! CPP goes bankrupt. OHIP is a disaster (you want fast service and will to pay - go to US or Cuba). 15% of Canadians are poor....even though taxes are ridiculously high


Supposedly 27% of kids in glitzy Toronto live in poverty-highest rate in Canada http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...te-of-canadian-cities-report/article32837373/


----------



## Eder

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."


----------



## gibor365

Eder said:


> "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."


True .

I just read "


> New York residents may be getting free tuition soon. Governor Andrew Cuomo has reached an agreement with lawmakers to make tuition free at public colleges for middle class New Yorkers. To be eligible for the Excelsior Scholarship, students must come from a household where their families make no more than $1,000,000 a year. Note: The state Assembly and Senate are expected to vote on the budget shortly.


 Interesing, eh?! Middle class and household income up to 1M .
Our Liberals proposed similar.... only household income up to what? 50K? Joke!


----------



## ian

I certainly have no issue with GIS.

I will be in clawback territory when I start OAP later this year. So will DW when she starts the program. 

I would be OK if the clawback was increased just as long as the delta was going directly back to increase the GIS for those that need it. I am not one of these starry eyed socialists or do gooders. I just believe that the true judge of our society is how we take care of those who are less fortunate-regardless of how they got there. What is wrong with helping someone out?


----------



## gibor365

> how we take care of those who are less fortunate-regardless of how they got there. What is wrong with helping someone out?


"less fortunate" is other words lazy and spenders should be given not "free fish, but fishing road" 
Not myself and not my wife gonna get GIS anyway, but we prefer this money would go not to so-called "less fortunate", but to seniors and students who unlike in other developed countries (except Canada and US) shpuld pay huge $$$ for education....

P.S. My mom who is senior is getting OAS from Israel.... just checked Canadian OAS...was very surprised that for seniors who lived 10 years in Canada, Canadian OAS 4 times less in $ than in Israel! and it's mandatory to continue living in Canada or you will get 0! (looks like socialism in Canada only when they tax us )


----------



## AltaRed

OAS is social welfare that should be scrapped outright with an overhauled GIS program to support those whose family income is less than perhaps $75k. It also should not be age based. A cpl in their '50s may need GIS as much as a senior age 65 or over. We already have a CPP program that is essentially the same as Social Security in the USA and many other countries. 

I agree that OAS (or its replacement) must have mininum residency requirements. After all, why should the Canadian taxpayer shell out money for someone who has not contributed to the tax base for at least 10-15 years (or more) and why should we pay it to someone who decides to live offshore? If one gets freebies from the Canadian taxpayer, spend it in Canada as well.


----------



## gibor365

> I agree that OAS (or its replacement) must have mininum residency requirements. After all, why should the Canadian taxpayer shell out money for someone who has not contributed to the tax base for at least 10-15 years


 then tell me why Canadian resident who never worked and never paid taxes shouldget 4 times more than resident who lived in Canada 10 years and 10 years paid taxes?



> and why should we pay it to someone who decides to live offshore


 because he/she lived in Canada 10 years (and this is a rule in many countries), btw, if they don;t live in Canada , they won't use "free" health care


----------



## sags

A common error..........to assume all government revenue comes in the form of personal taxes.


----------



## ian

I certainly don't view OAS as an entitlement. And we pay lots of consumption taxes over and above income taxes.

Our system is not perfect and there will always be lots of what ifs and what abouts. Having said that, we need to focus on the 80 percent where the parameters do fit. If we focused and fussed on the exceptions we would never get anything done.

Who really cares about the social system in Isreal?

We live in Canada. Citizens in Norway receive oil royalties. That certainly does not mean that Canadians should.


----------



## AltaRed

sags said:


> A common error..........to assume all government revenue comes in the form of personal taxes.


Agreed. There is a large part of society that pays GST/HST and contributes to the GDP of Canada through consumption. And per Ian, who gives a **** about systems in other countries? The point is no one should be sucking off the public teat if they don't have too. There are of course lazy bums who are leeches on society, but there are likely greater numbers who just can't function in our society to the degree they need to get above the poverty line. I don't believe in leaving those folks who have been Canadians all, or most, of their lives behind.


----------



## gibor365

> who gives a **** about systems in other countries?


 Common mistake... Canada, as a relatively new country, should try to implement the "best practices" from social system of other countries, not the worst ones.



> There are of course lazy bums who are leeches on society, but there are likely greater numbers who just can't function in our society to the degree they need to get above the poverty line.


 BS! And I'm telling you as an immigrant who came less than 20 years ago without even English, and started from the beginning considering that before Canada for 8+ years, I served in army and work in police I bet in different country. I bet that majority of immigrant would agree, that in Canada , only lazy bums or extreme spenders can't function in society (except small part who is really sick or handicapped).... imho, there are too many Canadians who were brainwashed that Canada's system is the best in thw world and no any change is needed.


----------



## AltaRed

I'd say we have a pretty good balance between rampant socialism in Western Europe vs the blatant capitalism free-for-all in the USA. What we need is good fiscal policy with a social conscience, i.e. balanced budgets and reduction of waste through better delivery of social programs. My view regarding immigration is that mostly we get the best of the best, i.e. people who want a fresh start and have the ambition and courage to improve their lives. But we also get a lot of sponsored family members that become a burden on society (health and welfare), and also those primarily focused on a passport of convenience to take advantage of our social systems.

That said, this discussion has gotten mostly off the rails regarding our GIS program which desparately needs improvements, but not at increased burden of the taxpayer. We need to get those who do not need financial support off OAS and re-structure that program in a major way. Will be very difficult for that to happen given seniors are now a bigger cohort than youth, and a powerful voting block egged on by a very self-interested and selfish CARP lobby.


----------



## gibor365

> But we also get a lot of sponsored family members that become a burden on society (health and welfare)


 Not really... sponsored family members cannot get any welfare , they need to live in Canada 10 years to start getting OAS... as majority of sposored seniors parents on local taxpayers - not many getting it at all. Also there is a limit for sponsored family members , i thing about 10K per year and they need to wait about 5-6 years before getting PR... Liberals give priority to so called syrian "refugees"...


----------



## bass player

AltaRed said:


> That said, this discussion has gotten mostly off the rails regarding our GIS program which desparately needs improvements, but not at increased burden of the taxpayer. We need to get those who do not need financial support off OAS and re-structure that program in a major way. Will be very difficult for that to happen given seniors are now a bigger cohort than youth, and a powerful voting block egged on by a very self-interested and selfish CARP lobby.


You can earn $0 for your entire life and still collect full OAS benefits for as long as you live, yet some people want to punish those who paid taxes for 40 years by taking it away from them. When is enough enough? Will there ever be a time at which those who did well, earned a living, and contributed to the tax base will stop being punished by those who want to "redistribute" their income?


----------



## ian

Agreed.

It is high time that we brought back poor houses and debter's prisons. Eliminate the GIS, kick those less fortunate seniors to the curb and send them to the soup kitchens.

While we are at it, end universal medicare. We redistribute the costs of the program through our taxation system. Time for everyone to move to a pay for service program. No pay, no medical or hospital care. No money...too bad for you.


----------



## bass player

ian said:


> Agreed.
> 
> It is high time that we brought back poor houses and debter's prisons. Eliminate the GIS, kick those less fortunate seniors to the curb and send them to the soup kitchens.
> 
> While we are at it, end universal medicare. We redistribute the costs of the program through our taxation system. Time for everyone to move to a pay for service program. No pay, no medical or hospital care. No money...too bad for you.


No one is suggesting such extreme measures, so would do you say that? However, the current mindset of taking more and more away from people who were successful due to hard work in order to make things "fair" is about as unfair as it gets. All that does is create an entitlement attitude and reward those who contribute nothing.

I'm fine with socialized medicine and many other shared costs. But, it has gone too far in the misguided belief that "fairness" can only be achieved by ensuring everyone has the same outcome regardless of how much they contribute. Those who work hard and are successful deserve to have more than those who don't. That's the definition of fair.


----------



## Parkuser

ian said:


> Agreed.
> 
> It is high time that we brought back poor houses and debter's prisons. Eliminate the GIS, kick those less fortunate seniors to the curb and send them to the soup kitchens.
> 
> While we are at it, end universal medicare. We redistribute the costs of the program through our taxation system. Time for everyone to move to a pay for service program. No pay, no medical or hospital care. No money...too bad for you.


I will second that. 

And ban fake Syrian “refugees.” Everybody knows they are not fleeing burning cities, these are all CGI effects put on “fake news” CBC by the Liberals. If we cannot reproduce then we can buy robots from Japan. Money? How about doing what Mother Russia does, sell the land to China. 1000 square km goes for 0.5B.
https://www.ft.com/content/700a9450-1b26-11e5-8201-cbdb03d71480


----------



## Nerd Investor

I know there was the tongue and cheek comment on poor houses and debtor's prisons, but I would like to see more subsidized necessities as a replacement for welfare.
In a perfect world, everyone would have the right to basic health care, shelter, food and clean water. If there was an efficient way to directly make all that available rather than paying someone welfare/basic income and trusting them to use those funds correctly I think we'd all be better off. 

If someone knew they were guaranteed a very small (but clean and safe) place to live, basic groceries and clean water you could argue they'd have no reason to work or contribute to society. But I'm guessing most of us would still want to live someone better (bigger and/or nicer and/or better location), eat out every once in a while, buy some beer, wine, better food, buy a TV, cell phone, travel, go to concerts and sporting events, buy nice clothes etc. 

This is totally idealistic and not realistic, but as robots are able to perform more and more tasks who knows what the future holds? I think a future where you're no longer working to survive but simply to determine how far beyond survival you want your l lifestyle to be is a pretty great blend of capitalism and socialism.


----------



## humble_pie

i for one appreciate the witticisms from ian & parkuser ...

but seriously, whizzing through the thread, i'm struck by all the sensibleness in altaRed's comments. 

.


----------



## Mukhang pera

gibor365 said:


> Not really... sponsored family members cannot get any welfare


Not really. They _can_ get welfare. The sponsor is required to sign an undertaking, promising to reimburse the Crown for any welfare paid to a sponsored relative during the period of the undertaking, which can be quite short. Some reference from the Canada immigration website is found here:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/5289ETOC.asp

If you spend any time reading on that site, you will see that you can be a man of straw and still be a sponsor. That makes the protection afforded the Crown by any "undertaking" more illusory than real. As well, you can easily get a job and show the required income today, then quit and resume pauper status once the sponsorship is approved.

I can turn up literally thousands of these, but here's one that crossed my desk recently:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/17/05/2017BCSC0524.htm

It's a family law case that illustrates something repeated thousands of times across the country every year. A few selected passages (below) will give the idea:

The parties were married in China on May 19, 2009. At the time of the marriage, Mr. Yang was a resident of Canada and Ms. Zhang was a resident of China.

[2] The parties have one child, Huai Hong Yang, who is also called "Hudson". Hudson was born in China on July 3, 2010.

[3] Ms. Zhang and Hudson immigrated to Canada in June 2011.

[4] Mr. Yang says that he and Ms. Zhang separated on November 23, 2011. Ms. Zhang places the separation on March 23, 2012. There is no dispute that Ms. Zhang moved out of the family home in late June 2012.

[41] In late June, 2012, Ms. Zhang moved into a transition house. She never returned to the 105A Avenue home. Between late June and early September 2012, Ms. Zhang lived in three different transition houses. She then moved into what she characterized as "secondary transition housing" through the YWCA. She applied for and started receiving social assistance. In February 2013, Ms. Zhang moved into permanent housing, also through the YWCA.

[43] Ms. Zhang started taking ESL classes soon after she arrived in Canada in June 2011. While her English is not perfect, she became almost fluent over the next five years. Between December 2012 and June 2014 she attended school full time at an adult learning center, taking high school courses. She started working as a waitress in August 2014 earning between $700 and $800 a month, which was supplemented by social assistance benefits of about $200 per month.

So, you see? The sponsored one arrived in Canada in June 2011 and was on welfare by June 2012. In this case there is some prospect recovery by the Crown. The husband is worthless, but his parents made the mistake of getting the couple into a house in the GVA, so there's an asset there and the notion of recovery is touched upon at para. 186. But that's rare. Usually the taxpayer is on the hook. We see more cases of the indolent sponsoring the indigent. Here, even assuming some recovery of actual welfare paid out, there will be no recovery of all the "transition house", "adult learning center" and related costs.


----------



## heyjude

To answer the original question: no. I have several GICs, all but one of which yield less than 3% interest. If anything, they are barely keeping up with inflation. I hold them only as a stabilizing force against volatility in my other vestments. By no stretch of the imagination can they be called "welfare". 

Spelling is important.


----------



## AltaRed

heyjude said:


> To answer the original question: no. I have several GICs, all but one of which yield less than 3% interest. If anything, they are barely keeping up with inflation. I hold them only as a stabilizing force against volatility in my other vestments. By no stretch of the imagination can they be called "welfare".
> 
> Spelling is important.


LOL... . I am surprised Moderators didn't fix thread title long ago.


----------



## heyjude

AltaRed said:


> LOL... . I am surprised Moderators didn't fix thread title long ago.


There has been NO moderation on this forum for a long time, until james4beach stepped up to the plate quite recently. And he can't be everywhere.


----------



## gibor365

> Not really. They can get welfare. The sponsor is required to sign an undertaking, promising to reimburse the Crown for any welfare paid to a sponsored relative during the period of the undertaking, which can be quite short.


 It's nice that you give examples from court, but we sponsored my mom and my MIL ... My mom lives here 5 years and in order to get OAS (1/4 of the max amount), she needs to live here another 5 years (10 in total)... thanks God, Israel has excellent rules (live there 10 years and get full OAS regardless if you live in country or not) and she gets full OAS from Israel...
btw,i came to Canada at 33 , even if I work until 65 and pay huge taxes, my Canadian OAS will be 25% less that get my mom from Israel!


----------



## ian

It is very difficult to selectively slice off pieces of different countries tax regimes and social benefit regimes for comparison purposes.

Isreal sounds wonderful. It must be a difficult decision for those who are considering emigrating from Israel to Canada.


----------



## Mukhang pera

gibor365 said:


> It's nice that you give examples from court, but we sponsored my mom and my MIL ... My mom lives here 5 years and in order to get OAS (1/4 of the max amount), she needs to live here another 5 years (10 in total)... thanks God, Israel has excellent rules (live there 10 years and get full OAS regardless if you live in country or not) and she gets full OAS from Israel...
> btw,i came to Canada at 33 , even if I work until 65 and pay huge taxes, my Canadian OAS will be 25% less that get my mom from Israel!


No issue with what you say about sponsored relatives eventually qualifying for a partial OAS etc. AltaRed posted that many sponsored relatives end up on welfare and you responded by saying "sponsored family members cannot get any welfare". That is incorrect. 

The tenor of your posts leads me to ask, if the Canadian system is so patently unfair and inferior to the way things are done in Israel, why would your mom or anyone else who can live there come here?


----------



## gibor365

> It is very difficult to selectively slice off pieces of different countries tax regimes and social benefit regimes for comparison purposes.


 Sometimes yes, in many cases no


> Isreal sounds wonderful. It must be a difficult decision for those who are considering emigrating from Israel to Canada.


 First of all it's not Isreal , but Israel.
Yes, it's a difficult decision ... and Canada does too much PR . It's wonderful, the problem is security situation, too much muslim terrorism (and western world, include Canada, never gave a **** about it) ... but now looks like it's spreading around whole world


----------



## gibor365

> No issue with what you say about sponsored relatives eventually qualifying for a partial OAS etc. AltaRed posted that many sponsored relatives end up on welfare and you responded by saying "sponsored family members cannot get any welfare". That is incorrect.


 What do you mean incorrect?! I cheked government website and it's written there that she can apply only after living 10 years in Canada. We have many other friends who is in the same situation.... If you know how to "trick the system", please let me know....



> The tenor of your posts leads me to ask, if the Canadian system is so patently unfair and inferior to the way things are done in Israel, why would your mom or anyone else who can live there come here?


 My mom came here only because we were living here.... In late 90's (when we came here),we couldn't know that "Canadian system is so patently unfair and inferior to the way things are done in Israel", not many info was on the Web and our English was too bad... 
and the major reason -> see previous post


----------



## AltaRed

Gibor, insulting us doesn't give you credibility. If you are so unhappy with the Canadian system, you and your Mom and friends truly are free to emigrate elsewhere... Really you are. Don't ever ***** about what Canada does to support landed immigrants and refugees. We are certainly top tier when it comes to welcoming new Canadians (as a percent of our population). Indeed we need young professional immigrants to keep our labour force viable. Your Mom should not be a burden on Canadian society. She is not our problem. She is your problem..especially if you sponsored her.

Firstly, there are a number of support programs available. We have universal, essentially free health care and in some provinces almos free drugs for seniors. There is GIS and refundable tax credits such as GST/HST. There are child benefits. There is subsidized affordable housing for those that do not have enough income to pay rent and eat at the same time. There is government supported retirement homes and assisted care. The list goes on.

Secondly, comparing a specific Canadian OAS program with that of Israel is a red herring. Countries decide how and where and when to provide social programs. Some have strengths in some areas, others have strengths in other areas. I could care less about Israel or any other country for that matter. My take is Canada is very generous to provide short term residents with essentially a universal form of social security. There has to be qualifying periods to make it fair to taxpayers. 

But this is quite off topie. This thread is really supposed to be about the inadequacy of the GIS program and the excesses that exist in the OAS system (before benefits are clawed back) that could be used to beef up a more universal income supplement program. GIS is named Guaranteed Income Supplement for a reason and it is this program that needs to be torqued up to be more fair to a greater number of individuals.


----------



## gibor365

> If you are so unhappy with the Canadian system, you and your Mom and friends truly are free to emigrate elsewhere... Really you are. Don't ever ***** about what Canada does to support landed immigrants and refugees.


 We lived here too long and paid too much taxes, so we're not going anywhere, don't worry ...
Absolutely, Canada doesn't support landed immigrants and obvioulsy it's good for Canada to do PR and bring young immigrant, hence Canada didn;t spend even penny on education etc and getting taxpayer who also bringing money here ... but we don't care, we care that we have support when we retired ...
On the other hand, Canada is helping different kinds of refugees too much (again to increase PR) and we don't like it.

and bass players is correct, Canadians who worked hard and paid more taxes deserve more in retirement than Canadians who whas bumming around whole life (except living here for 40+ years) and especially more than fake refugees...
And government doesn't care about working people retirement as they ger huge government pensions and benefits...


----------



## AltaRed

Few of us are particularly enthused about those lazy bums, petty thieves and a-holes of our society who have leeched off the backs of the Canadian taxpayer throughout their lives but there are not many ways to prevent that. It kinda comes with the territory of a tolerant society if we are not prepared to put them on work gangs in the Arctic building roads by pick and shovel. Clearly having them begging and homeless (and I mean the lazy bums, not the mentally and physically challenged who make up much of our homeless element) presents other burdens such as excessive use of health care, social services and the like. The balance will never satisfy everyone.


----------



## ian

Gibor, you appear have so much disdain and complaints for and about Canada's taxation regime, our social programs, and our immigration policy, plus just about everything else.

Why remain in Canada and be unhappy or complain all the time? Why not return to Israel since, from your perspective, it offers so much more to you than does Canada? You could potentially be so much happier there.


----------



## heyjude

AltaRed said:


> Gibor, insulting us doesn't give you credibility. If you are so unhappy with the Canadian system, you and your Mom and friends truly are free to emigrate elsewhere... Really you are. Don't ever ***** about what Canada does to support landed immigrants and refugees. We are certainly top tier when it comes to welcoming new Canadians (as a percent of our population). Indeed we need young professional immigrants to keep our labour force viable. Your Mom should not be a burden on Canadian society. She is not our problem. She is your problem..especially if you sponsored her.
> 
> Firstly, there are a number of support programs available. We have universal, essentially free health care and in some provinces almos free drugs for seniors. There is GIS and refundable tax credits such as GST/HST. There are child benefits. There is subsidized affordable housing for those that do not have enough income to pay rent and eat at the same time. There is government supported retirement homes and assisted care. The list goes on.
> 
> Secondly, comparing a specific Canadian OAS program with that of Israel is a red herring. Countries decide how and where and when to provide social programs. Some have strengths in some areas, others have strengths in other areas. I could care less about Israel or any other country for that matter. My take is Canada is very generous to provide short term residents with essentially a universal form of social security. There has to be qualifying periods to make it fair to taxpayers.
> 
> But this is quite off topie. This thread is really supposed to be about the inadequacy of the GIS program and the excesses that exist in the OAS system (before benefits are clawed back) that could be used to beef up a more universal income supplement program. GIS is named Guaranteed Income Supplement for a reason and it is this program that needs to be torqued up to be more fair to a greater number of individuals.


Well said, AltaRed.


----------



## heyjude

ian said:


> Gibor, you appear have so much disdain and complaints for and about Canada's taxation regime, our social programs, and our immigration policy, plus just about everything else.
> 
> Why remain in Canada and be unhappy or complain all the time? Why not return to Israel since, from your perspective, it offers so much more to you than does Canada? You could potentially be so much happier there.


I have made this point many times. However, gibor wants to have his cake and eat it too. 

Maybe I'll try immigrating to Israel. It sounds like the land of milk and honey. We'll see how that goes.


----------



## gibor365

ian said:


> Gibor, you appear have so much disdain and complaints for and about Canada's taxation regime, our social programs, and our immigration policy, plus just about everything else.
> 
> Why remain in Canada and be unhappy or complain all the time? Why not return to Israel since, from your perspective, it offers so much more to you than does Canada? You could potentially be so much happier there.


As i said before , before moving here we couldn't know that (as somebody said here) "Canadian system is so patently unfair and inferior to the way things are done in Israel".
Now it's too late, so will try to change it .

btw, about fairness, lets take 2 scenarios:
1. Person A, Canadian born or immigrated here before age 25. He/she never officially worked and never paid any taxes. At age 65 , this person applying for OAS and getting full amount
2. Person B, immigratedto Canada at age 46. Worked from day 1 for 19 years and every year paid taxes. At age 65, person B applying for OAS and gets.... less than 50% from Person A!

Lets expend:
3.Person A at age 65 decides move out of Canada, and he continue receiving full OAS amount
4.Person B does the same and get ...NOTHING (as he didn't live in Canada 20 years)!

Tell me this is fair!


----------



## TomB16

This is fair.


----------



## ian

It's fair.

Are you really implying that person A did not spend any money? Indirect taxes are significant in Canada.

You will never judge it to be fair because you have a huge chip on your shoulder. Not good to go through life with so much negativity.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Israel may have a better senior's welfare program for someone emigrating there rather than to Canada (although I can't find info to substantiate that) but by all other rankings it is far below Canada as a place to live - that is why people move to Canada. 
For example:
Best countries ranking, Canada #2, Israel #30: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-full-list
Quality of Life Index, Canada # 17, Israel #25: https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp
Where to be born, Canada #9, Israel #20: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index#2013_rankingshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index#2013_rankings

I challenge anyone to find a survey that ranks Israel above Canada as a place to live (for any reason). Personal preferences are certainly allowed, but they are just that.


----------



## AltaRed

Gibor, that lazy twit who leeched off society for 40 years does not exist, but to the extent he/she does, yes, it is (sort of) fair that a long time Canadian resident receive OAS. The reality is that lazy twits want their cell phones, a few meals per day and a warm place to sleep, so they do work, even if only part time jobs at minimum wage. Indeed, a very significant minority likely get by with minimal income that results in minimal income tax payments, but they do pay consumption (value added) taxes. That person will also qualify for GIS because presumably that person has been homeless, or near homeless, on the streets for 40 years too with no assets accumulated. Is that fair to the majority of hard working middle class people? Probably not but none of those hard working middle class people would want to trade places with that lazy twit either.

Regardless of how fair or unfair you think it is, it is reasonable and fair that immigants do not take advantage of Canada's generosity. Just like yourself that has worked and contributed to Canadian society, there is an equal immigrant or two that has also leeched off the system and we cannot be a residence of convenience. I remember vividly the Lebanese rescue mission with froth foaming at my mouth. They took advantage of our Canadian system to have a passport of convenience, then went back to Lebanon, and then expected to be rescued when civil war broke out. I would have left them there. Canada is not a piggybank for citizens of the world.


----------



## TomB19

One of the things that might be overlooked in this discussion is that Canada exists for Canadians. Or, at least, it should.

Those who come here, work for a while (probably sending a bunch of money home every month) and then leave are not what the country is about.

We talk about not having enough jobs but I have friends who were laid off and replaced with guest workers. I was too but I got another job the next day.

At some point, it would be nice if the electorate would develop an opinion on the idea of creating new welfare recipients while hiring non-canadians who typically send a high ratio of their earnings out of the country.

... And we wonder where the money goes...


----------



## gibor365

> Israel may have a better senior's welfare program for someone emigrating there rather than to Canada (although I can't find info to substantiate that) but by all other rankings it is far below Canada as a place to live


 Just yesterday I did research and found that OAS in Israel after 10 years residency equal (even a bit higher) than full OAS (40+) year in Canada (and stays in effect if person move to another country)... So, my mom lived in Israel about 12-13 years (she officially worked maybe 8-9 years, mostly part-time, but even if she wasnt work , the result would be the same). Because she worked she gets 2% on the top on OAS for every year she worked + additional 2% for every year of seniority (new law , just got introduced)...
To summarize , if my mom even didn't work at all, and I would be working until 65 and paying taxes, I'd get only 80% of what she is getting (in $). She had there a lot of other benefits, like paying only 10% or 20% from property tax etc....




> I challenge anyone to find a survey that ranks Israel above Canada as a place to live (for any reason)


 easy 

Israel may have a better senior's welfare program for someone emigrating there rather than to Canada (although I can't find info to substantiate that) but by all other rankings it is far below Canada as a place to live 


The World Health Organization (WHO) health systems ranking: Israel 28, Canada 30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000

Life Expectancy for Countries, Israel 11, Canada 18
https://www.infoplease.com/world/health-and-social-statistics/life-expectancy-countries-0

To tell you the truth, those Quality of Life rankings are very biased.... in one of the ranking of Canada I read " _Canada's healthcare is what stands it above the rest."_  Give me a break! See above WHO ranking!


----------



## gibor365

I just don't understand one thing.... Taxes in Canada is higher than in Israel. Canada max tax :


> 58.75% + Surcharge taxes (Varies) (15%-33% federal + 5%-25.75% provincial + 0–C$900 Health Premium + Surcharge Taxes)


, in Israel 50%.
Social package for seniors is much better in Israel.
When I lived there (not sure if this rule still exist), if you got laid off , you start getting EI in 1 months, if you quit - you start getting EI in 3 months....

Huge amount Israel spends on defence (against all those terrorists group and countries) - about 16% (the biggest spending ). Canada doesn't need to spend on defence practically nothing .

So, I just don't get where all our Canadian taxes are going?! To subsidize government workers and refugees?! somewhere else?!


----------



## gibor365

> They took advantage of our Canadian system to have a passport of convenience, then went back to Lebanon, and then expected to be rescued when civil war broke out. I would have left them there.


 I remember it very well and 100% agree with you! I don't get why Canada should rescue them on taxpayers amount.?! It wasn't Entebe operation . If you ask me, it was just International PR, and this is why it was in all posible media news


----------



## Mukhang pera

gibor365 said:


> What do you mean incorrect?! I cheked government website and it's written there that she can apply only after living 10 years in Canada. We have many other friends who is in the same situation.... If you know how to "trick the system", please let me know....
> 
> My mom came here only because we were living here.... In late 90's (when we came here),we couldn't know that "Canadian system is so patently unfair and inferior to the way things are done in Israel", not many info was on the Web and our English was too bad...
> and the major reason -> see previous post


Gibor, I have never done this in more than 20 years of participating on forums such as this, but I am calling you out out as full of excrement. In short, you are flat out lying. There is no "government website" that you could "chek" that says a sponsored immigrant is prohibited from applying for social assistance for 10 years. Complete and utter nonsense you are spewing. This is Canada. The welfare state. Take for example, I sponsor someone here as my wife. She cannot speak English, has no education, income or assets. I kick her out of our home one year after bringing her here and give her nothing. She goes to a government office and asks for help. Are you such a moron as to really believe that they will tell her to come back in 10 years? 

So come on. Give us the url for the website you "cheked". You are not only incorrect, but you are mendacious. Prove me wrong, if you can.


----------



## gibor365

> I kick her out of our home one year after bringing her here and give her nothing. She goes to a government office and asks for help. Are you such a moron as to really believe that they will tell her to come back in 10 years?


 probably yiu are a moron, in this stupid case you describe, your wife will get welfare, but goverment would sue you in the court and you will pay for your wife's welfare.


----------



## Mukhang pera

gibor365 said:


> probably yiu are a moron, in this stupid case you describe, your wife will get welfare, but goverment would sue you in the court and you will pay for your wife's welfare.


Just what I expected. You are not able to direct us to any government website. And please provide just one single case citation for the "goverment" suing to recover welfare paid. Just one little case citation, huh, gibor? Pretty please?

In any event, it is clear that you now agree with what I said. Sponsored relatives _can indeed_ get welfare. The government can then seek to recover the benefits paid under the terms of its agreement with the sponsor. Many of those agreements specify an indemnity period of well under 10 years. Or do you want to argue that point as well? Also, many sponsors will prove to be judgment-proof, so there will be no real chance of collecting. I suppose you'll disagree on that score also.

Gibor, you need to grow some huevos and learn to accept criticism. You called AltaRed out as being wrong about sponsored immigrants receiving welfare. It was you that was just plain wrong and I directed you to a Canada government website to prove the point as well as a very recent B.C. Supreme Court decision illustrating the point. Like a small child, you have sought to deny the undeniable and then lash out at any who would demonstrate your error.


----------



## gibor365

Holy ****! Just found that from January 1, 2014 goverment of canada extended period from 10 years to 20 years! Thus, senior will get OAS only at age 85! (most likely never)

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/2013-12-31.asp



> Extends the undertaking period for sponsors of parents and grandparents and their accompanying dependants, from 10 to 20 years.Sponsors must sign a sponsorship agreement in which they commit to provide for the basic needs, such as food, clothing and shelter, of their parent or grandparent and any accompanying family members, for a period of 20 years.


It shouldn't apply to us, as my mom lives here for 5.5 years, and application for my MIL sponsorship we filled out before 2014, but this is RIDICULOUS! 
Government of Canda prefer waste moneyon syrian fake refugees, helping africans, climate change and screw up seniors. Indeed, great job!


----------



## Mukhang pera

gibor365 said:


> Holy ****! Just found that from January 1, 2014 goverment of canada extended period from 10 years to 20 years! Thus, senior will get OAS only at age 85! (most likely never)
> 
> http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/2013-12-31.asp


Sounds like Trudeau might not be so bad after all. A step in the right direction.


----------



## gibor365

For muhang ...


> What will happen to my sponsor?
> 
> The federal and provincial governments have the right to sue your sponsor to get money for your support (see also page 36). If you’re collecting welfare benefits, the provincial government’s policy is to require your sponsor to pay back all the money you received in welfare benefits.
> 
> If your sponsor won’t support you for the time they promised and you have to go on welfare, they won’t be allowed to sponsor other family members unless they pay the government all the money that the welfare ministry gave you.


http://discuss.settlement.org/topic40971-financial-aid-for-sponsored-parents.aspx

If you want court case, look by yourself, don't wantto waste time for this BS.

And if you are so smart, tell me how, in a legal way, my mom can get OAS before leaving 10 years in Canada....


----------



## gibor365

Mukhang pera said:


> Sounds like Trudeau might not be so bad after all. A step in the right direction.


Nothing to do with Trudeau as he wasn't PM in 2014 .... check google if you think I'm lying.... :grief:

Even though, we personally don't care about this ridiculous law, if Trudeau doesn't reverse it, he will be a moron. 
Interesting that this law got introduced very quitely.... right, who gives a **** about seniors-immigrants.... Syria that what important


----------



## Mukhang pera

gibor365 said:


> For muhang ...
> 
> http://discuss.settlement.org/topic40971-financial-aid-for-sponsored-parents.aspx
> 
> If you want court case, look by yourself, don't wantto waste time for this BS.
> 
> And if you are so smart, tell me how, in a legal way, my mom can get OAS before leaving 10 years in Canada....


As I understand the OAS program, one must be over 65 and have spent at least 10 years in Canada after age 18 to qualify. So no, I cannot tell you, in a legal way (or any other way for that matter), how mom can get OAS before leaving (living?) in Canada for at least 10 years. That requirement seems perfectly sensible, and indeed generous to immigrants.


----------



## gibor365

Mukhang pera said:


> As I understand the OAS program, one must be over 65 and have spent at least 10 years in Canada after age 18 to qualify. So no, I cannot tell you, in a legal way (or any other way for that matter), how mom can get OAS before leaving (living?) in Canada for at least 10 years. That requirement seems perfectly sensible, and indeed generous to immigrants.


So, you just proved that I was correct regarding OAS!


----------



## Mukhang pera

gibor365 said:


> Nothing to do with Trudeau as he wasn't PM in 2014 .... check google if you think I'm lying.... :grief:
> 
> Even though, we personally don't care about this ridiculous law, if Trudeau doesn't reverse it, he will be a moron.
> Interesting that this law got introduced very quitely.... right, who gives a **** about seniors-immigrants.... Syria that what important


You're right. I checked. Effective in 2014. Bring back Harper!

I don't get it, gibor. Why should immigrant seniors be able to come to Canada and receive a taxpayer-funded pension after only a few years of residence? I would say let's focus on improving the lot of seniors who have lived and worked here all their lives, or at least for decades.


----------



## Mukhang pera

gibor365 said:


> So, you just proved that I was correct regarding OAS!


Agreed. My point was about welfare, or social assistance, or whatever be the pc term of the moment.


----------



## gibor365

> I would say let's focus on improving the lot of seniors who have lived and worked here all their lives, or at least for decades.


 I agree with it and many times was telling that seniors should have free dental and so on...



> Why should immigrant seniors be able to come to Canada and receive a taxpayer-funded pension after only a few years of residence?


 I'm sorry! But I'm also taxpayers, as well as my wife and my kids... So why , even partially, our taxes cannot go to our parents-grandparents OAS?! Do you really thing that spending on syrian refugees or african countries is more important for us?!


----------



## gibor365

> in Canada for at least 10 years. That requirement seems perfectly sensible, and indeed generous to immigrants.


 from 2014 it's 20 years... not big % of seniors will live until 85.... 
If you ask me, every Canadian citizen should be eligible for OAS (some min amount) if she/he 65


----------



## james4beach

I corrected the thread title


----------



## humble_pie

it was the harper gummint that introduced the 20-year residence provision, before sponsored parents & parents-in-law could latch onto the senior eldercare welfare system. That Jason Kenney was a good minister of immigration in the PC cabinet.

as i recall, the original version of the bill also called for ending all publicly-funded medicare support for sponsored parents & parents-in-law, not just for 20 years, but forever & ever.

immigrants wishing to land parents in this country would have to show that they had sufficient funds to buy private medical insurance for their old folks. Or the old folks had to demonstrate sufficient funds to buy their own private medical insurance. Not just for 20 years, but forever & ever.

if they dropped those articles in the final version of the bill, perhaps taxpayers could persuade the trudeau gummint to reinstate them.


.


----------



## ian

If anything I think Canada's treatment of senior immigrants is overly generous.

My preference would be to reduce the number of seniors entering the country and increase the number of younger people who have their entire working lives ahead of them and preferable want to have a family. I don't want Canada to become a subsidized old age home for other country's seniors

Our demographics and our economy need young people. Don't really care what country they come from. Syria, Israel, South Africa. As long as they are law abiding and make a contribution to our country it is fine with me.


----------



## CalgaryPotato

ian said:


> If anything I think Canada's treatment of senior immigrants is overly generous.
> 
> My preference would be to reduce the number of seniors entering the country and increase the number of younger people who have their entire working lives ahead of them and preferable want to have a family. I don't want Canada to become a subsidized old age home for other country's seniors
> 
> Our demographics and our economy need young people. Don't really care what country they come from. Syria, Israel, South Africa. As long as they are law abiding and make a contribution to our country it is fine with me.


That is our immigration policy. The cities that take the most immigrants have the youngest populations. The cities that take the least have the oldest.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

james4beach said:


> I corrected the thread title


Thanks James. Makes sense now and future browsers won't be confused (except perhaps by the content


----------



## canew90

I may be off topic but this thread seems to have gone everywhere.

1. I'm against a Universal Income for all
2. I'd just get rid of OAS
3. I don't object to GIS for those who qualify
4. What happen to the days when Family took care of their own

We did not come from a rich family, in fact we barely got by, but we never sought gov't assistance. We got by with less and spent less. 
When I got married in 1964 we had zip and my sister gave us a $60 to help, as I earned $115/per mo.
Over the years I always worked (I did not complete HS) but never collected UIC or EI
There were times when I was out of work but managed to work for others or took menial jobs to pay bills
We started our own business as I could not find a job, and even then had to get part time work.
In my 40's I went back to school to get an Accting degree
Never worked where I would collect a pension
Began really saving for retirement in our 50's
At 60 I still felt I'd work forever, but did eventually cut back and stopped completely at 67.

Personally I think too many have been brought up thinking they are owed a good life without working for it. Many of the problems are caused by the parents, having too much and not being responsible themselves. Credit is too loose and people use it too freely, eventually becoming burdened with debt and have little way out. The gov't is a joke and wastes more money and rarely consider the effect of the massive debt they create. They get excited when they Balance the Budget, but are not really reducing total debt.
As for people coming into the country, they should be sponsored and welfare, handouts, free housing, etc should be their own responsibility. My parents came to Canada with nothing and immediately went to work or they did without. They did get some help from friends but certainly not enough to live on and not for any extended period.


----------



## sags

One function of government is to redistribute wealth.

If not for redistribution, all the wealth will flow to the 1% who own all the assets.

As the evidence is the wealth gap is growing, the government needs to redistribute more of the wealth..........not less.


----------



## Nerd Investor

It's making my head hurt watching you two argue over two completely different things. 

Old Age Security: You have to be a resident for 10 years after age 18 to qualify, at which point your years of residency divided by 40 pro-rates the portion of the max you are entitled to. 
This does not seem unreasonable to me. Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/old-age-security/eligibility.html

Welfare is complete different. I don't know who qualifies and at this juncture don't really care.


----------



## humble_pie

ian said:


> If anything I think Canada's treatment of senior immigrants is overly generous ... I don't want Canada to become a subsidized old age home for other country's seniors.



exactly. The change from the old immigration policy, which was to encourage family unification, to the new policy of searching for skills happened under the harper government. 

a young lebanese-canadian was telling me recently what a hard time his grandmother, who lives in lebanon, had when she wanted to attend her grandson's recent wedding in canada. Apparently ottawa would not give her a visitor's visa for the longest time, out of concern that she might stay in this country once she got here. 

in this case, the grandmother is comfortably off in lebanon, has no desire to live in cold climate canada. She had to file evidence after evidence after evidence, but eventually ottawa relented & granted the visitor's visa. Grandmother arrived, she attended the wedding, she visited family, she departed.

the interesting thing was how patient & good humoured the grandson was during the entire episode. He'd known in advance that the visitor's visa would be very difficult for the grandmother to obtain, would take a very long time. The family had started the application process nearly a year before the wedding date. 

the grandson approved of canada's rigour in the matter. He self-identifies with canada (he himself was born in this country) & as a young professional with a blossoming career here, he does not want to see canada turn herself into a nursing home for the world's aging seniors.


.


----------



## CalgaryPotato

I don't think you can just get rid of OAS, too many seniors rely on it. You could merge it with GIS so it's more of a low income supplement only and claw it back more dramatically. But GIS as of nisn't much, and you can't have a bunch of seniors on the streets getting just GIS and maybe Canada pension.


----------



## AltaRed

CalgaryPotato said:


> I don't think you can just get rid of OAS, too many seniors rely on it. You could merge it with GIS so it's more of a low income supplement only and claw it back more dramatically. But GIS as of nisn't much, and you can't have a bunch of seniors on the streets getting just GIS and maybe Canada pension.


The issue is to take total GIS and OAS funds and re-design the program into one entity for Canadians in need. Our seniors, as a cohort, have more wealth than any other cohort in Canada. It is a relative minority that retired with nothing and that need support, but it isn't just those 65 and over. There are a lot of Canadians in their 50s and early 60s that can no longer do physical work due to disabilities. What we need is an income supplement program that is not age tested, targeted to those in need. Clawback has to happen a much lower income level than currently and it should be household (family) income tested to avoid rich seniors, such as each of a couple earning up to $75k each getting OAS without any clawback. No household with an income exceeding $100k needs a drop of income support. 

Example: I am totally clawed back, my spouse gets full OAS. As a couple, we don't need a dime from the gov't. It is obscene.

People get too hung up on OAS as a defined program. It in itself is way off base in structure and desidn. Build a new mousetrap truly for those in need.


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> One function of government is to redistribute wealth.
> 
> *If not for redistribution, all the wealth will flow to the 1% who own all the assets.*
> 
> As the evidence is the wealth gap is growing, the government needs to redistribute more of the wealth..........not less.


Can you explain this?


----------



## canew90

Guess we need Robin Hood back, except that was fiction.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> The issue is to take total GIS and OAS funds and re-design the program into one entity for Canadians in need. Our seniors, as a cohort, have more wealth than any other cohort in Canada. It is a relative minority that retired with nothing and that need support, but it isn't just those 65 and over. There are a lot of Canadians in their 50s and early 60s that can no longer do physical work due to disabilities. What we need is an income supplement program that is not age tested, targeted to those in need. Clawback has to happen a much lower income level than currently and it should be household (family) income tested to avoid rich seniors, such as each of a couple earning up to $75k each getting OAS without any clawback. No household with an income exceeding $100k needs a drop of income support.
> 
> Example: I am totally clawed back, my spouse gets full OAS. As a couple, we don't need a dime from the gov't. It is obscene.
> 
> People get too hung up on OAS as a defined program. It in itself is way off base in structure and desidn. Build a new mousetrap truly for those in need.




altaRed i am always so happy to read your posts. These are difficult & challenging issues but often i see you suggesting a sensible path forward. You never lose track of the compassion that is needed for the truly unfortunate; but at the same time you are always looking to prune fluff, reconfigure payouts dramatically, overhaul & spartanize the entire system.

is there any chance you might go into politics? the country needs leaders with so much good common sense

.


----------



## CalgaryPotato

humble_pie said:


> altaRed i am always so happy to read your posts. These are difficult & challenging issues but often i see you suggesting a sensible path forward. You never lose track of the compassion that is needed for the truly unfortunate; but at the same time you are always looking to prune fluff, reconfigure payouts dramatically, overhaul & spartanize the entire system.
> 
> is there any chance you might go into politics? the country needs leaders with so much good common sense
> 
> .


Can CMF register as a political party for the next federal election?


----------



## CalgaryPotato

AltaRed said:


> The issue is to take total GIS and OAS funds and re-design the program into one entity for Canadians in need. Our seniors, as a cohort, have more wealth than any other cohort in Canada. It is a relative minority that retired with nothing and that need support, but it isn't just those 65 and over. There are a lot of Canadians in their 50s and early 60s that can no longer do physical work due to disabilities. What we need is an income supplement program that is not age tested, targeted to those in need. Clawback has to happen a much lower income level than currently and it should be household (family) income tested to avoid rich seniors, such as each of a couple earning up to $75k each getting OAS without any clawback. No household with an income exceeding $100k needs a drop of income support.
> 
> Example: I am totally clawed back, my spouse gets full OAS. As a couple, we don't need a dime from the gov't. It is obscene.
> 
> People get too hung up on OAS as a defined program. It in itself is way off base in structure and desidn. Build a new mousetrap truly for those in need.


Yeah, I agree completely. It's sad how many of the retirement strategies on here have a big component around maximizing OAS for people who don't need it (not that I blame the people on here, I blame the program).


----------



## humble_pie

CalgaryPotato said:


> Can CMF register as a political party for the next federal election?



too much factional in-fighting i'm afraid

we could have one leader & everybody support him, though

.


----------



## CalgaryPotato

humble_pie said:


> too much factional in-fighting i'm afraid
> 
> we could have one leader & everybody support him, though


Yeah unlike the other political parties, which get along peachy keen internally.


----------



## AltaRed

humble_pie said:


> is there any chance you might go into politics? the country needs leaders with so much good common sense


OMG....no. I don't have the temperment to get past the nomination gate. Too much WYSIWYG wired into me.


----------



## Pluto

AltaRed said:


> OAS is social welfare that should be scrapped outright with an overhauled GIS program to support those whose family income is less than perhaps $75k. It also should not be age based. A cpl in their '50s may need GIS as much as a senior age 65 or over. We already have a CPP program that is essentially the same as Social Security in the USA and many other countries.
> 
> I agree that OAS (or its replacement) must have mininum residency requirements. After all, why should the Canadian taxpayer shell out money for someone who has not contributed to the tax base for at least 10-15 years (or more) and why should we pay it to someone who decides to live offshore? If one gets freebies from the Canadian taxpayer, spend it in Canada as well.


I'd like to point 9out theat US social security maximum payment is about 31,000 US per year, while CPP maximum is about 12,000 CDN per year, less than half of the US payments.


----------



## NorthernRaven

AltaRed said:


> The issue is to take total GIS and OAS funds and re-design the program into one entity for Canadians in need. Our seniors, as a cohort, have more wealth than any other cohort in Canada. It is a relative minority that retired with nothing and that need support, but it isn't just those 65 and over. There are a lot of Canadians in their 50s and early 60s that can no longer do physical work due to disabilities. What we need is an income supplement program that is not age tested, targeted to those in need. Clawback has to happen a much lower income level than currently and it should be household (family) income tested to avoid rich seniors, such as each of a couple earning up to $75k each getting OAS without any clawback. No household with an income exceeding $100k needs a drop of income support.
> 
> Example: I am totally clawed back, my spouse gets full OAS. As a couple, we don't need a dime from the gov't. It is obscene.
> 
> People get too hung up on OAS as a defined program. It in itself is way off base in structure and desidn. Build a new mousetrap truly for those in need.


When considering radical changes to OAS, remember that in some ways it can be considered a small pension (with pay-as-you-go funding), with one's taxes making the premium payments. There's redistributive effects of course, and the clawback is an analog of progressive tax rates, etc. Obviously there isn't a firm commitment or anything, but the further you go in eliminating OAS or making it strictly a low-income supplement, the more you are in effect retroactively taxing those that will get less or nothing back.


----------



## naysmitj

CPP is currently funded, US social security has an estimated unfunded liability of more than $24.9 trillion


----------



## CalgaryPotato

NorthernRaven said:


> When considering radical changes to OAS, remember that in some ways it can be considered a small pension (with pay-as-you-go funding), with one's taxes making the premium payments. There's redistributive effects of course, and the clawback is an analog of progressive tax rates, etc. Obviously there isn't a firm commitment or anything, but the further you go in eliminating OAS or making it strictly a low-income supplement, the more you are in effect retroactively taxing those that will get less or nothing back.


If it's supposed to be part of the pension that it should be added to CPP and taken more directly from people's pay cheques. If it's supposed to be for the poorer seniors than it should be merged with GIS.

As it stands now, it's in some weird in between state, where it doesn't go to those that were taxed the most, but it also isn't beneficial enough for those that were in the lowest income brackets.

My other issue with OAS, while I like the fact you can only get it after a certain number of years in Canada, I think the penalty is too much for those that came in their middle ages. If you come to Canada at 40. You'll spend over half of your working life in Canada (usually your highest earning years) , but get just over half of Old Age Security. In this case it doesn't work particularly well for those that immigrated here, either as a pension or as a safety net.


----------



## AltaRed

NorthernRaven said:


> When considering radical changes to OAS, remember that in some ways it can be considered a small pension (with pay-as-you-go funding), with one's taxes making the premium payments. There's redistributive effects of course, and the clawback is an analog of progressive tax rates, etc. Obviously there isn't a firm commitment or anything, but the further you go in eliminating OAS or making it strictly a low-income supplement, the more you are in effect retroactively taxing those that will get less or nothing back.


A total f**kup needs to be corrected someday. When do you call a spade a spade? I doubt few in their 30's and 40's and even 50's understand OAS anyway. They don't even care to find out what the qualifiers are. Let's just fix what is wrong sooner rather than later by re-allocating the funds to those that truly need it. Almost everyone in the free world lives under a progressive tax system, some more punitive than others. Canada, I think, is pretty much in the middle of the pack. I can live with that.


----------



## NorthernRaven

CalgaryPotato said:


> If it's supposed to be part of the pension that it should be added to CPP and taken more directly from people's pay cheques. If it's supposed to be for the poorer seniors than it should be merged with GIS.
> 
> As it stands now, it's in some weird in between state, where it doesn't go to those that were taxed the most, but it also isn't beneficial enough for those that were in the lowest income brackets.


It isn't a work-based thing, as CPP is. It is much more like a form of age-specific (or perhaps delayed) universal "basic income" - in effect we are saying that broadly speaking, we can afford to recognize a basic level of value our citizenry provides to our society, that is not proportional to or may not be fully reflected solely by wages or other income-generating activity.


----------



## Parkuser

Non-working spouses, taking care of kids, do they deserve a small pension? What would be the feminist POV?


----------



## Pluto

naysmitj said:


> CPP is currently funded, US social security has an estimated unfunded liability of more than $24.9 trillion


Yes, CPP is funded while SS is not. The US social security seems to ba a more pay as you go thing. Even so, their payouts to seniors seems to be a lot higher in US than Canada's cpp+oas+gis. (I wonder why Canada gets this "socialist" label relative to the US. Except for healthcare system, it seems the other way around.)


----------



## NorthernRaven

Pluto said:


> Yes, CPP is funded while SS is not. The US social security seems to ba a more pay as you go thing. Even so, their payouts to seniors seems to be a lot higher in US than Canada's cpp+oas+gis. (I wonder why Canada gets this "socialist" label relative to the US. Except for healthcare system, it seems the other way around.)


CPP has an unfunded component, but they still have net inflows (more CPP contributions than payouts). At some point (I think late in the 2020s) that reverses, and income from the investment portfolio will be needed to cover some of the annual payout. The ongoing "neutrality" at the current CPP contribution rates depends on a certain required minimum return from investments, the general accuracy of the demographic assumptions, and CPP continuing as a program.


----------



## Pluto

AltaRed said:


> The issue is to take total GIS and OAS funds and re-design the program into one entity for Canadians in need. Our seniors, as a cohort, have more wealth than any other cohort in Canada. It is a relative minority that retired with nothing and that need support, but it isn't just those 65 and over. There are a lot of Canadians in their 50s and early 60s that can no longer do physical work due to disabilities. What we need is an income supplement program that is not age tested, targeted to those in need. Clawback has to happen a much lower income level than currently and it should be household (family) income tested to avoid rich seniors, such as each of a couple earning up to $75k each getting OAS without any clawback. No household with an income exceeding $100k needs a drop of income support.
> 
> Example: I am totally clawed back, my spouse gets full OAS. As a couple, we don't need a dime from the gov't. It is obscene.
> 
> People get too hung up on OAS as a defined program. It in itself is way off base in structure and desidn. Build a new mousetrap truly for those in need.


I do sympathize with your concern about a seemingly patchwork of pensions. But there are some drawbacks to targeting those in need. Apparently OAS used to be means tested and seniors didn't like the stigma. It was like welfare. At at later date OAS became within limits, universial with the claw back. That way, the welfare like stigma was avoided while not giving it to the well off. 

Anyway, while targeting the needy makes some sense, the bureaucratic welfare like means testing is expensive, and to many seniors, demeaning. It might be simpler to have a more agressive clawback, but politically dangerous.


----------



## ian

My understanding is that the latest fiscal analysis of CPP indicates that it is in very good shape for at least another 50 years. Cannot remember if it was 2075 or 75 years, however it was far into the future. Thanks to Paul Martin's initiative.

US Social Security is a completely different animal. Not in any way funded or managed like, or nearly as well as, CPP. SS is funded from general revenue. SS deductions are based on income. CPP deductions are based on income CAPPED at approx $50K. This number represents the average industrial wage in Canada. Every employee under 60 pays into CPP. There are large swaths of US workers, often state gov't employees, teachers, who do NOT pay into the US social security system. They are exempt because of alternate employer programs. Many in the US are very concerned about current sustainability model of the SS program.


----------



## gibor365

> My other issue with OAS, while I like the fact you can only get it after a certain number of years in Canada, I think the penalty is too much for those that came in their middle ages. If you come to Canada at 40. You'll spend over half of your working life in Canada (usually your highest earning years) , but get just over half of Old Age Security. In this case it doesn't work particularly well for those that immigrated here, either as a pension or as a safety net.


 Exactly what I was trying to say . If immigrant is older than 25 y.o,, he/she screwed to some degree.


----------



## gibor365

> If anything I think Canada's treatment of senior immigrants is overly generous.
> 
> My preference would be to reduce the number of seniors entering the country and increase the number of younger people who have their entire working lives ahead of them and preferable want to have a family. I don't want Canada to become a subsidized old age home for other country's seniors
> 
> Our demographics and our economy need young people. Don't really care what country they come from. Syria, Israel, South Africa. As long as they are law abiding and make a contribution to our country it is fine with me.


Canada every year has quote for 250,000 independent (young ) immigrant and only about 10K for sponsirsips (include not only parent/grandparents, but also spouses and children), this is very small amount and much less than number of refugees whom nobody needs here anyway.
Nowdays, application to sponsor parents can wait easily 5-7 years.... I bet that many independent immigrant (first of all with good financial status outside Canada) wouldn't come to Canada at all, if they couldn't sponsor their parents, or their parent would never get OAS and free medical.... Not sure how it is with Canadian born people, but in many countries wellbeing of parents play very significant role.
It's just unfair toward people who are already PR or citizens, that their parents cannot get OAS for 20 years living here....becuase when they immigrated ,law was only 10 years.... You want this ridiculous law, announce it and implement 3-5 years later.


----------



## Parkuser

An interesting article showing one of the reason probably underlining sponsorship immigration policy:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile


----------



## james4beach

ian said:


> US Social Security is a completely different animal. Not in any way funded or managed like, or nearly as well as, CPP. SS is funded from general revenue. SS deductions are based on income. CPP deductions are based on income CAPPED at approx $50K. This number represents the average industrial wage in Canada.


Yup, and SS isn't cheap for US workers. I pay an enormous SS tax on each US paycheque. Last year I paid about $9,000 into US Social Security + Medicare, or 8% of my gross income. And SS is unfunded...

Compared to this, I feel like CPP + OAS + GIS + provincial health are good systems.


----------



## humble_pie

Parkuser said:


> An interesting article showing one of the reason probably underlining sponsorship immigration policy:
> 
> https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile




acute care hospitals are discharging stable patients who need some chronic care & this is true for all patients regardless of who they are or how long they've lived in canada.

we can sense here the frustration & even the despair of the son who had been looking after his father in his own home for quite some time already. Caregivers become exhausted. Evidently this 53-year-old & his wife were trying to put their foot down & prevent the father from being returned to their house.

we can be sympathetic to the son but certainly equally sympathetic to the hospital that needed the acute care bed. Mr. Panidis senior was not an acute care patient. What he needs now is a nursing home, but the article said there is a one-year wait.

this article helps to illustrate why canada can no longer afford to sponsor immigrants' parents unless the arriving seniors can totally pay for their own private medical insurance & all the costs of their own old age.

.


----------



## gibor365

In any case, curious, how OAS and GIS work? per indivudual or per couple? assuming one spouse is 65 and 2nd is still working, can 1st spouse get OAS and GIS?


----------



## Parkuser

gibor365 said:


> In any case, curious, how OAS and GIS work? per indivudual or per couple? assuming one spouse is 65 and 2nd is still working, can 1st spouse get OAS and GIS?


NO clue how it works but raging against it. An exemplary supporter of Donald "I love the poorly educated" Trump.


----------



## AltaRed

gibor365 said:


> In any case, curious, how OAS and GIS work? per indivudual or per couple? assuming one spouse is 65 and 2nd is still working, can 1st spouse get OAS and GIS?


OAS is individual based (which is one of the excesses of the program) and is payable as early as age 65 or can be deferrred to a higher rate to as late as age 70. It matters not what the other individual's status is. GIS and OAS do not count when testing OAS clawback provisions. Try googling OAS for options to defer (may be better if there is enough family income at age 65).

GIS is more complicated and is family income tested and is different for an individual or a couple. You need to Google the various gov't webpages for explanation. See also taxtips http://www.taxtips.ca/seniors/gis.htm


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> ..........OAS do not count when testing OAS clawback provisions......


Are you saying OAS is not included in taxable income to determine clawback amounts?

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

like_to_retire said:


> Are you saying OAS is not included in taxable income to determine clawback amounts?
> 
> ltr


I re-read what I wrote and should not have combined GIS and OAS in the same sentence. What I really meant was 'OAS net of clawback', i.e. only what one actually keeps is part of the income test.


----------



## gibor365

> OAS is individual based (which is one of the excesses of the program) and is payable as early as age 65 or can be deferrred to a higher rate to as late as age 70


What I don't understand.... if I start OAS at 65, I'll get 32/40 of max amount. But if I defer it to 70, I should have more not only because of deferral , but also my seniority increases to 37/40 from max?


----------



## gibor365

> GIS is more complicated and is family income tested and is different for an individual or a couple.


 I read official website, and there is different amount for individual and for family.

The question if I can apply individualy or must apply for as family?

If 2nd is correct, I start understanding why some couple select "smart retirement planning", they just divorce before one of the spouses hits 65


----------



## AltaRed

I don't think it matters since GIS is family income tested (albeit I don't know much on GIS specifics). It's not worth the cost inefficiency of 2 separate residences for the measly amount of GIS. That is like spending $2 to make $1.


----------



## gibor365

AltaRed said:


> I don't think it matters since GIS is family income tested (albeit I don't know much on GIS specifics). It's not worth the cost inefficiency of 2 separate residences for the measly amount of GIS. That is like spending $2 to make $1.


I don't know how it works.... some time ago I was talking to some Canadian who got "divorced" and he was talking something about GIS etc.... then I didn't pay attention, but now I start understanding , btw, they were divorced, but continued living in the same house .
Just curious if government is doing something to prevent fake divorces.... as to tell the truth , it's difficult to prove.... no one can check who sleeps with whom


----------



## AltaRed

gibor365 said:


> I don't know how it works.... some time ago I was talking to some Canadian who got "divorced" and he was talking something about GIS etc.... then I didn't pay attention, but now I start understanding , btw, they were divorced, but continued living in the same house .
> Just curious if government is doing something to prevent fake divorces.... as to tell the truth , it's difficult to prove.... no one can check who sleeps with whom


Oh yes, there is definitely tax court results (and case law outcomes) on fraudulent divorces/separations. CRA computers do address mapping on tax returns and make the assumption residents of the same address are a couple...as they should. People who are legitimately room mates only have had to work hard to defend against CRA 'categorizing' them as cpls. It takes interviews with friends and family and can even result in surveillance activity to sort it out. Try that at one's own risk. 

FWIW, I support CRA's actions in this regard to reduce fraud and lessen the burden on honest taxpayers like myself :/ I have paid big time at high MTRs into the system over the years and thus have high disregard for cheats.


----------



## olivaw

OAS and GIS calculations are here. Your situation would need to fit within a relatively narrow range to make it financially beneficial to abuse the system with a fraudulent divorce. 

Not to mention the risk of raising CRA's ire: 
http://business.financialpost.com/p...-wants-to-know-whats-going-on-in-your-bedroom

ETA: Oops, cross posted with AltaRed but left my post anyway.


----------



## gibor365

> I support CRA's actions in this regard to reduce fraud and lessen the burden on honest taxpayers like myself





olivaw said:


> OAS and GIS calculations are here. Your situation would need to fit within a relatively narrow range to make it financially beneficial to abuse the system with a fraudulent divorce.
> 
> Not to mention the risk of raising CRA's ire:
> http://business.financialpost.com/p...-wants-to-know-whats-going-on-in-your-bedroom
> 
> ETA: Oops, cross posted with AltaRed but left my post anyway.


I also support .


> If your yearly income, not including your OAS pension, exceeds $17,543.99, you do not qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement.


 considering that only my RRIF payments will be higher, this schema is impossible in our case


----------



## bass player

gibor365 said:


> Exactly what I was trying to say . If immigrant is older than 25 y.o,, he/she screwed to some degree.


OAS is for Canadian residents of a certain duration...it's not designed to reward non-Canadians.


----------



## bass player

Parkuser said:


> Non-working spouses, taking care of kids, do they deserve a small pension? What would be the feminist POV?


They do get a small pension. It's called OAS.


----------



## gibor365

bass player said:


> OAS is for Canadian residents of a certain duration...it's not designed to reward non-Canadians.


For "old blocks" .
Interesting that Trudeau goverments reverted C-51 (absolutely meaningful law), but didn't even mentioned OAS or extention of "waiting period" for seniors-parents to 20 years....

Trudeau = king of PR!


----------



## Parkuser

bass player said:


> They do get a small pension. It's called OAS.


Exactly, this is why suggested cancelling OAS would disadvantage non-working spouses taking care of kids.


----------



## AltaRed

Parkuser said:


> Exactly, this is why suggested cancelling OAS would disadvantage non-working spouses taking care of kids.


Not really. The point is not just to get rid of OAS as currently constructed. It is to re-route the money into a much fairer 'income supplement' system currently called GIS, but needs strengthening in terms of funds and NOT just for those aged 65 and over. 

I think it was Paul Martin as Finance Minister who once floated a trial balloon called the 'Seniors Benefit'. He damn near got scalped by spoiled, priviledged seniors with entitlement behaviour....including one of the most biased lobbyists there is... CARP. People should be looking at this in a practical sense in terms of who actually needs support and/or more of it.


----------



## bass player

Parkuser said:


> Exactly, this is why suggested cancelling OAS would disadvantage non-working spouses taking care of kids.


Perhaps it would, but that's a personal choice that everyone would need to make for themselves if the rules ever change. CPP currently has rules that eliminates some low earning child rearing years from the final calculation, which would soften the blow. Also, the spouse of a stay at home can also contribute RRSP's on behalf of their spouse.

In addition, most couples take into account the financial ramifications of choosing to have one spouse stay at home and they make the decision as a family unit, therefore, it's not fair to say that cancelling OAS would disadvantage one person because that one person was able to enjoy the financial benefits of a working spouse while they stayed at home with the children for all those years.


----------



## Ihatetaxes

GIS is a tiny amount and hard to qualify for. I think it should be improved and paid for via OAS which should be reduced and/or claw back begins at a lower level. I'd like to see CPP contributions and payouts increased - maybe 40-50%% higher than it is today. Perhaps voluntary employee contribution increases for those working who want a larger payout when they retire. I don't think seniors should be living at poverty level, particularly those with no education who worked at a low income job all their lives and just never got ahead with saving for their retirement because life got in the way. I don't think a senior couple with anywhere near a six figure income should see a dime of OAS.

With the amount of money our government pisses away on some crazy things I think looking after our seniors should move up the priority scale quite a bit.

Ok back to Gibor vs the world battle...


----------



## Parkuser

I have no solution to any social problems. I am not even sure there is a significant problem in the area discussed. It started from OAS being denounced as unjust because it is pro-rated. Well, set the limit at 15 years and another Mr. Egoistic F.U. Kvetcher will rage unhinged that he does not qualify after 14 years.

It is easy to say, make a decision and stick to it. The OP, (today an imaginary hobo, tomorrow a rich paraplegic) rightly points that your life and your life-view changes, often unpredictably. This is why advice: make an early choice, stick to it and you will be fine, does not convince me. My neighbor 60+ is on his third wife. With the first he split the house and RRSP; I do not know his second ex arrangement. But his in-jest recipe for “retirement” is: work as long as you can and then go for assisted suicide. Good luck with that.

I like many avenues of saving for retirement. Prefer more rather than less, because each can appeal to a different life ideology; messy rather than governed by sharp cutting rules. I see OAS (and GIS) as a land rent, your share of spoils from being an owner-citizen of the country; CPP as a way of saving you from yourself; employer pension as a reward for putting in hours; RRSP and TFSA as appeal to your rational self (thank you Mr. Flaherty, I think about you fondly and bless you for pension splitting tax rule). But it’s just me.


----------



## bass player

Parkuser said:


> II like many avenues of saving for retirement. Prefer more rather than less, because each can appeal to a different life ideology; messy rather than governed by sharp cutting rules. I see OAS (and GIS) as a land rent, your share of spoils from being an owner-citizen of the country; CPP as a way of saving you from yourself; employer pension as a reward for putting in hours; RRSP and TFSA as appeal to your rational self (thank you Mr. Flaherty, I think about you fondly and bless you for pension splitting tax rule). But it’s just me.


I agree with most of that except for pension (or income) splitting. Splitting income rewards married people and those not married are punished by paying higher taxes.


----------



## like_to_retire

bass player said:


> I agree with most of that except for pension (or income) splitting. Splitting income rewards married people and those not married are punished by paying higher taxes.


Totally agree. I would like to see some form of equity for seniors who are single and can't take advantage of the unfair income splitting that married couples enjoy. There is no one for them to split income with, so some form of credit should be created, or better yet, just scrap income splitting.

A retired married couple living in a home where one spouse's pension is $80K and the other has no pension can effectively split that income and enjoy taxes of someone who has a $40K pension. The married couple's house isn't any more expensive or more heavily taxed than the single senior who lives next door and has a pension of $80K. The house taxes are the same, the heating bill is the same, etc, etc., but the single will pay measurably more in tax, clawback, and loss of other credits. It's completely unfair.

ltr


----------



## ian

Absolutely agree with you on income splitting for seniors. We take advantage of it.

It was a purely political move by the Harper Gov't. to secure the votes of the group that happens to have the highest voter turnout and in a demographic that is most likely to vote Conservative. This move had nothing to do with income redistribution and everything to do with politics and getting elected with a majority. We Canadians like being bought with our own money.

Harper's own Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, was on record as opposing income splitting for families as being the least effective way of re-distributing income. Fortunately it did not come to pass.

Many of our social programs, as good as they may be, we designed by various Governments as 'vote getters' first and foremost.


----------



## Parkuser

Got in hot water again. Gonna shut up.


----------



## TomB19

My dad recently passed and there is a small chance my mom will be in a position of having to pay tax. She has lost his oas, her costs have gone up since he was taking care of her when he was alive (almost to the very end) and she isn't very mobile.

Our tax system isn't the best design but, even with her limited means, she is going to be ok. Whatever happens, she will be taken care of. She has family. I don't see where it all has to be on the government.

It's amazing how far off end of life is until you blink one day and you're looking at your last 20-25 years, many of which are unlikely to be good.

My wife and I do not have children so we had best safe a little extra. We'll have to pay people to help us when the time comes.


----------



## like_to_retire

Yeah, this brings up another unfortunate tax situation where someone with a generous pension is able to split with their spouse and then the spouse passes. All of a sudden they must bear the tax burden as a single. Pension splitting should be removed.

ltr


----------



## sags

The Liberals would be happy to leave that up to the Conservatives to propose :friendly_wink:.


----------



## kcowan

like_to_retire said:


> Yeah, this brings up another unfortunate tax situation where someone with a generous pension is able to split with their spouse and then the spouse passes. All of a sudden they must bear the tax burden as a single. Pension splitting should be removed.
> ltr


So you think they should eliminate the benefit just in case the spouse dies? How about they suggest a new mate?! Ridiculous.

Tax burden is a good thing. It pays for all our other benefits.


----------



## like_to_retire

kcowan said:


> So you think they should eliminate the benefit just in case the spouse dies? How about they suggest a new mate?! Ridiculous.
> 
> Tax burden is a good thing. It pays for all our other benefits.


I just feel income splitting is an unfair situation that should be corrected, no matter how they do it. Many, especially those that take advantage of it, may well disagree.

ltr


----------



## Karen

gibor365 said:


> Holy ****! Just found that from January 1, 2014 goverment of canada extended period from 10 years to 20 years! Thus, senior will get OAS only at age 85! (most likely never)
> 
> http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/2013-12-31.asp


I just read the article, and, unless I missed something, it doesn't say anything about not being eligible for OAS for 20 years - it just says the person who sponsors their parent or grandparent will now have to agree to sponsor them for 20 years instead of 10 years. Is an immigrant not eligible to apply for OAS if they are being sponsored by a child or grandchild? I thought they could apply when they had been in Canada for the required period of time, regardless of their having been sponsored. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.


----------



## gibor365

Karen said:


> I just read the article, and, unless I missed something, it doesn't say anything about not being eligible for OAS for 20 years - it just says the person who sponsors their parent or grandparent will now have to agree to sponsor them for 20 years instead of 10 years.  Is an immigrant not eligible to apply for OAS if they are being sponsored by a child or grandchild? I thought they could apply when they had been in Canada for the required period of time, regardless of their having been sponsored. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.


Yes, sponsored person won't be eligible to apply for OAS or GIS. Very unfair law . Before 2014, sponsor should sign sponsorship agreement for 10 years,from 2014 for 20. So, if sponsored person immigrated at age 50 and worked 15 years until age 65, he/she is not elegible for OAS/GIS... imho.this is discrimination.
Again, it didn't apply to us, as we signed 10 years agreement, but as a fair person, I think it's very unfair.


----------



## bass player

^^
Perhaps you haven't noticed yet, but Canada doesn't have a bottomless well of money to give to everyone who shows up here. It's not discrimination to put limitations on benefit programs...it's simply common sense.


----------



## kcowan

like_to_retire said:


> I just feel income splitting is an unfair situation that should be corrected, no matter how they do it. Many, especially those that take  advantage of it, may well disagree.
> 
> ltr


It is true that two cannot live as cheaply as one. Maybe 1.5 so maybe reduce it to 66% for widows/separated/divorced.


----------



## bass player

kcowan said:


> It is true that two cannot live as cheaply as one. Maybe 1.5 so maybe reduce it to 66% for widows/separated/divorced.


How about no income splitting at all? That way all taxpayers are treated equally.

Or...maybe it's time to give a tax break to single people to make up for the unfair tax advantage that married people have enjoyed over the years.


----------



## gibor365

bass player said:


> ^^
> Perhaps you haven't noticed yet, but Canada doesn't have a bottomless well of money to give to everyone who shows up here. It's not discrimination to put limitations on benefit programs...it's simply common sense.


When conservatives omplement this program, they also decreased taxes, introduced split income and increased TFSA room.... so I can understand it, Liberals canceled everything except 20 years sponsorship agreement....
If you talk about money ... in 99% of cases , Canada didn't spend 1 penny on sponsors (I mean education, health care, recreatinal facilities etc), so imho, theor parents should be eligible for OAS (at least). Also, government has money to spend billions on different things like refugees, foreign aid, climate change etc and cannot find money for senior parents of Canadian citizens?! Absurd!


----------



## gibor365

bass player said:


> How about no income splitting at all? That way all taxpayers are treated equally.
> 
> Or...maybe it's time to give a tax break to single people to make up for the unfair tax advantage that married people have enjoyed over the years.


Family functions like company, sometimes one spouse sacrifice his.her job/income in order to spouse to succeed. it's like to charge corporate tax depends on profits of every department separately... doesn't make sense to me....

Also,if a couple. fill out taxes and pay them separately, then GIS should be apply separately per person regardless of spouse income.


----------



## ian

That right. Otherwise we would have senior relatives of everyone flocking to Canada for a free ride on the medical/healthcare system and signing up for OAS/GIS. The cost of healthcare on a per person basis increases substantially as one ages. Canada wants to increase the number of people under retirement age in order t grow our economy. No magic in that.

Taxes would increase.......Gibor would be the very first person to complain about that.

Entry to Canada is not a right, It is a privilege, notwithstanding if other family members are already in Canada. If seniors coming to Canada do not like it then they can either stay in their home country or emigrate to another more generous country...if indeed there is one. There are many others willing to take their place in line.


----------



## bass player

gibor365 said:


> Family functions like company, sometimes one spouse sacrifice his.her job/income in order to spouse to succeed.


Understood. But, why should non-married people be forced to subsidize someone else's personal choice?



gibor365 said:


> it's like to charge corporate tax depends on profits of every department separately... doesn't make sense to me....


It's not the same.



gibor365 said:


> Also,if a couple. fill out taxes and pay them separately, then GIS should be apply separately per person regardless of spouse income.


GIS was designed to keep people from poverty, it's not a reward program. Therefore, it is prudent to include spousal income when paying benefits.


----------



## gibor365

> That right. Otherwise we would have senior relatives of everyone flocking to Canada for a free ride on the medical/healthcare system and signing up for OAS/GIS.


 There is 10K/year limit on sponsorship program, much much less than on Syrian refugees.



> Taxes would increase.......Gibor would be the very first person to complain about that.


 Not necessarily. Decrease spendings on refugees and foreign aid.


Canadian government can do whatever they want , but if you significantly change sponsorship rules, you can cannot do it in 1-2 months... implement it in several years, so immigrant who is coming here would know that their parents will be screwed and would make decisions accordingly.


----------



## like_to_retire

kcowan said:


> It is true that two cannot live as cheaply as one. Maybe 1.5 so maybe reduce it to 66% for widows/separated/divorced.


Yeah, that would probably be somewhat fairer, although I still tend toward what respected member *bass player* said, _How about no income splitting at all? That way all taxpayers are treated equally._ A radical concept indeed...

I think most would agree that the senior income splitting was introduced to get votes. There are so many of these credits and perks that I would like to see put to bed. The trouble is that once you start receiving them, you become an advocate for them, and it's hard to eliminate such loyalty.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

There is some rationale for income splitting (and family income splitting) but it clearly was/is a very targeted demographic.... where either the mother or father stayed home to raise the kids rather than work for wages. An old fashioned perspective of supporting a 'nuclear' family unit. Personally, we benefit with pension income splitting here, but I would have rather the equivalent money have gone for improved and less costly day care. But then there would be a demographic against that too.....why on earth subsidize families? After all, it is a personal choice to be a couple, never mind raise kids. Would the better answer simply be to take away all benefits and reduce income tax rates/minimum thresholds?


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> Would the better answer simply be to take away all benefits and reduce income tax rates/minimum thresholds?


Sure and also get rid of half the MPs. Lots of ways to make the system better! At least some of them are clawed back. At least for LTR, the splitting means little if the spouse has their own income. It is a hangover from the SAHM phase. And the daycare is a fix for the working parents.


----------



## gibor365

> Understood. But, why should non-married people be forced to subsidize someone else's personal choice?


 because their kids will be paying for your bills when you are a senior.

Removing split income (as well as other credits) would be fair, it we have flat tax system....otherwise


> people be forced to subsidize someone else's personal choice?


 and


> That way all taxpayers are treated equally.





> Taxes would increase.......Gibor would be the very first person to complain about that.


 interesting math , Harper introduce income split (and not only for seniors, but for everyone), doubled TFSA room, reduced GST, had balance budget and .... reduced taxes, .... Selfie boy reverted prectically everything, got huge budfet deficit and .... increased taxes


----------



## gibor365

btw, "income splitting" exist in many developed countries like Germany, USA, France etc , but from what I read on CMF, people here "doesn't give a [email protected] about other countries", hence Canada has its own "special path" :stupid:


----------



## ian

Harper balanced the budget? Yes, he did. In ONE year out of NINE and only by prematurely selling the GM shares and by taking $2B from EI fund. The other eight years were deficits.


----------



## AltaRed

gibor365 said:


> btw, "income splitting" exist in many developed countries like Germany, USA, France etc , but from what I read on CMF, people here "doesn't give a [email protected] about other countries", hence Canada has its own "special path" :stupid:


You are right. We geneally do not care (and shouldn't care) what other countries do. Those who do not like it can vote with their feet. 

What we do need is a dramatically simplified Income Tax Act that takes away most of the boutique tax credit stuff and likely hundreds of loopholes. We could probably raise the personal exemption to $20k if most of the boutique tax credits went away. Some are still worthwhile though like the donation tax credit. That is how much of our social support services are delivered


----------



## gibor365

> Those who do not like it can vote with their feet.


 Those who do not like it can vote! And we vote! Harper was on correct part when started to introduce income split (hopefully Trudeau-clowns will loose next elections). And if you didn't like it, why you didn't vote with your feet?!



> What we do need is a dramatically simplified Income Tax Act


 Agree with this one. if not flat tax,at least simplify this ridiculous tax machine


----------



## gibor365

ian said:


> Harper balanced the budget? Yes, he did. In ONE year out of NINE and only by prematurely selling the GM shares and by taking $2B from EI fund. The other eight years were deficits.


I don't care if he sold GE shares or AAPL shares, the point that he balanced budget. Trudeau right away announce deficit and after several months greatly increase "planned" deficit . I can bet my money that Trudeau-clowns NEVER gonna have balanced budget. they are spenders on bullshits


----------



## sags

So to make the tax system "fair" for all, everyone would agree that Canadian dividends and capital gains should be taxed at the same tax rate as income from wages ?


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> So to make the tax system "fair" for all, everyone would agree that Canadian dividends and capital gains should be taxed at the same tax rate as income from wages ?


Canadian dividends and capital gains should be taxed at flat rate regardless of income and it's done in many developed countries.


----------



## AltaRed

Actually not dividends since they were taxed already in the corporation and provided to shareholders as after tax dollars. That is what the gross up and dividend tax credit is about....to make it fair to us. The alternative would be to provide us with pre-tax dividends and make them tax deductable to the corporation (like interest on their debt). 

Cap gains is fair game, but then disadvantages us vis-a-vis the USA (even worse there with short term vs long term cap gains). If we think our tax code is complex.........


----------



## mrPPincer

gibor365 said:


> Canadian dividends and capital gains should be taxed at flat rate


Thus mostly only something worth holding for people in the higher tax brackets? The higher the tax bracket the more worthwhile holding them?
Doesn't seem like a fair system for the little guy then.


----------



## mrPPincer

^unless you were saying that every-thing should be taxed flat rate as well, which would be something else to wrap the mind around.

I personally prefer a progessive tax system but have not really thought much about flat tax all around. If the corporations & big boys actually payed their fair share, that's then something to really consider imho.


----------



## AltaRed

I would support a flat tax system IF executive pay wasn't so obscene relative to the rest of the organizational chain, but North America has gone completely bonkers relative to Europe with executive/management pay. Hence it seems a progressive tax system is likely the only thing that can get a bigger share of outrageous pay packets.


----------



## gibor365

mrPPincer said:


> Thus mostly only something worth holding for people in the higher tax brackets? The higher the tax bracket the more worthwhile holding them?
> Doesn't seem like a fair system for the little guy then.


It's worth holding for everyone.... 
btw,i don't hold stock in non-reg account (except legacy ESP) because of complexity of our tax system, I already spend days filling out taxes and don't want additional headache calculating my dividends income and capital gains


----------



## gibor365

AltaRed said:


> I would support a flat tax system IF executive pay wasn't so obscene relative to the rest of the organizational chain, but North America has gone completely bonkers relative to Europe with executive/management pay. Hence it seems a progressive tax system is likely the only thing that can get a bigger share of outrageous pay packets.


I agree that many executives in government companies get ridiculously high pay, but if it's a private company - this is owners choice as they were bright and worked hard to earn their pay.

In any case, the first step should be simplification of the tax system, removing as much as possible credits and reduce tax brackets... it's insane having more than 50-60 tax forms.
For example, remove all those choldren tax credits: for day care, physical activity, art activity etc... instead give to any parents who has young kids certain amount of money... parents will decide for them self to spend it on kirdergarted or one parent stays with kids at home or grandmother takes care of them.


----------



## bass player

mrPPincer said:


> Thus mostly only something worth holding for people in the higher tax brackets? The higher the tax bracket the more worthwhile holding them?
> Doesn't seem like a fair system for the little guy then.


The little guy is able to not pay tax on a far greater percentage of their income due to the personal exemption.


----------

