# Early retirement and living abroad impact on OAS



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I thought it might be worth posting a thread on this. Even if it has been posted before, it never hurts to have a reminder.

Canada Pension Plan is based on your contributions while working. I'm sure most people know that. However, Old Age Security is based on years of residency in Canada after age 18. To receive the maximum, you require 40 years of residency in Canada after that age. 

If you do the math then you will see that if you have lived outside of Canada for more than 7 years since age 18, you will not be eligible to receive the maximum OAS payments. That could cause an 'oops' for some people.

Suppose you have lived in Canada consistently since age 18 but plan to retire at age 55 and move to say, Costa Rica. That would mean perhaps falling 3 years short of the max which would mean you would only receive 37/40ths of the maximum OAS payment per month. Suppose you were originally an immigrant to Canada who arrived at age 25 and plan to retire back to your birth country at age 55. You would only have a maximum of 30 years residence in Canada and only receive 30/40ths of the max. Suppose you were born in Canada but spent 10 years working abroad as an 'expat'. That 10 years will be deducted from the 40 year requirement for the maximum OAS payments.

The point is that you need to know about this when looking at what to expect from OAS after you retire.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Ineresting to also consider why someone moving away from Canada should expect to be entitled to OAS?

Unlike CPP, it is a non-contributory benefit paid out as part of current gov't expenses. 

Of course we have all paid taxes over the years, thus supporting past OAS payouts, but those taxes have benefited us with other benefits as well - medical, education, infrastructure, etc.

What is the argument for being entitled to Canadian old age security if you choose to permanently exit Canada? (not talking about 'snow birds' here)

I ask because there has been frequent discussion about the fairness and viability of the current OAS system (esp. re the GIS component). Maybe OAS recipients should be resident in Canada?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Maybe OAS recipients should be resident in Canada?


That is precisely what I would fight for. Why should the Canadian taxpayer provide social assistance to someone who is not resident in Canada? OAS was designed to be an anti-poverty program...presumably based on Canadian living standards and cost of living. Since we have no idea whether someone who has the financial wherewithal to live ex-Canada is in poverty or not (most likely not if they can afford to live elsewhere), cut them off!


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> . Why should the Canadian taxpayer provide social assistance to someone who is not resident in Canada?



Perhaps an even better question is why have OAS at all? It is a reward for the indolent. While some of us were being responsible, working hard, saving for retirement, there was another group taking life easy, spending every dime they made, and, on reaching age 60, or whatever it is for OAS, they stick their hands out saying those who worked should now subsidize their retirements. 

Do we need another anti-poverty program? We have welfare. That should be enough. Canada has no shortage of free money programs. That's why half of the world's population wants to come here. Word is out that Canadians hand out money to reward laziness on a grand scale. And, when you want to bog off to another country to continue your idle ways, we'll ask "Where would you like us to send your cheque?"


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Maybe the Gov't would come out ahead if recipients left the country and received OAS - Cause when people retire they reach the age where medical system will be used more. So if they are in Canada while young, then leave when older, doesn't the gov't benifit? If losing OAS by leaving entices them to stay, doesn't that add to medical system usage? Maybe they should say you only get OAS if you leave. If they go to a country with no tax treaty, Canada will still tax the pension even if you are not here.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

yes, OAS was origionally welfare for the elderly, and means tested. Apparently, around 1952 it was made universal and every one got about $40 a month. Not sure when the claw back came in. Maybe the clawback began in the mid 1990's when Martin decided to do something about the Gov't debt. 

It does seem wierd it was made universial, although means testing is an expensive bureaucratic process. Wonder what the political climate was in 1952 to make universality viable? The claw back is presumably more effecient compared to means testing. I suppose it would be easy, though not politically, to lower the clawback threshold.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I would be in favour of accelerating the claw back as well as only paying out to Canadian residents. The residency is a tough nut. Some retirees are out of the country for six months a year but maintain residences and pay tax in Canada. 

And when the top incremental tax rate was 39 percent in Alberta vs 50 ish in Ontario there were more than a handful of high income folks who arranged their affairs in order to claim as Alberta residents instead Ontario residents. More than one unoccupied basement suite or joint ownership with a relative in Calgary!

Easier to do check on out of country now with the new border security, electronic passport info systems.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Mukhang pera said:


> Perhaps an even better question is why have OAS at all? It is a reward for the indolent. While some of us were being responsible, working hard, saving for retirement, there was another group taking life easy, spending every dime they made, and, on reaching age 60, or whatever it is for OAS, they stick their hands out saying those who worked should now subsidize their retirements.
> 
> Do we need another anti-poverty program? We have welfare. That should be enough. Canada has no shortage of free money programs. That's why half of the world's population wants to come here. Word is out that Canadians hand out money to reward laziness on a grand scale. And, when you want to bog off to another country to continue your idle ways, we'll ask "Where would you like us to send your cheque?"


I'd rather not get into another debate here like I did on another forum as it pertains to 'entitlement' mentalities, but the issue really is that OAS isn't nearly restricted enough, both in terms of application AND the relatively high clawback thresholds that apply. I do believe we have a segment of the population that exists at, or below, the poverty level and thus a better GIS program could solve that...with the money saved from more OAS restrictions. Alas, it won't likely happen because of the political cost AND lobbyists like unions and CARP.


----------



## BC Eddie (Feb 2, 2014)

Just an FYI that Canada has reciprocal agreements with other countries that impacts the receipt of OAS.

See this article by Doug Runchey

https://retirehappy.ca/social-security-agreements-cpp-oas/


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

Interesting points across the board. 

OAS has been built into the fabric of retirement planning. Major changes will likely have to be gradual and I would suspect may have collateral impact on CPP since government benefits _overall_ form one leg of many retirement plans. 
Re: Residency. What if you pay into the system all your life, end up with no personal retirement savings (divorce?), and go to some 3rd world country to live? [Pluto's health care comment was interesting too.]
Re: Mean testing. It's generally income based. But what if you end up with a huge TFSA? Or have a huge capital assets?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I agree there are a lot of complications, and room for abuse as noted. Not everything can be fixed, but clawback thresholds certainly can be fixed over time through de-indexing if nothing else, as can using family income for means testing, etc. It's a complicated subject with a lot of sensitivities.


----------



## tdiddy (Jan 7, 2015)

Interesting comments about OAS. Hard to know what will happen with this, if anything given the political landmine it would represent. It certainly provides somewhat of a disincentive to strive for retirement incomes in the 150Kyear range. Almost like a regressive tax on the wealthy (ie clawback represnts significant dent for someone drawing 130k/year and very little for someone making 300k/year in retirement)


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I doubt very much whether anything will happen. Seniors vote at a much higher proportion than other age groups. Politicians are very aware of this. They have a strong preference for re-election. The public trough is everything to them to these folks.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

tdiddy said:


> It certainly provides somewhat of a disincentive to strive for retirement incomes in the 150Kyear range. Almost like a regressive tax on the wealthy (ie clawback represnts significant dent for someone drawing 130k/year and very little for someone making 300k/year in retirement)


I beg to differ. Claw back starts around $75k (per person) and is only 15 cents on the dollar at that point. I can assure you I would rather have $130k income in 100% claw back territory than be anywhere less on the income ladder. With a 15 cents on the dollar claw back there is NO reason whatsoever for anyone with a $75k or higher income in retirement to be influenced by OAS claw back. 

It is the same undefendable argument as saying you prefer 3% interest instead of 5% interest on your investments because you will be paying more income tax at 5%.


----------



## tdiddy (Jan 7, 2015)

AltaRed said:


> I beg to differ. Claw back starts around $75k (per person) and is only 15 cents on the dollar at that point. I can assure you I would rather have $130k income in 100% claw back territory than be anywhere less on the income ladder. With a 15 cents on the dollar claw back there is NO reason whatsoever for anyone with a $75k or higher income in retirement to be influenced by OAS claw back.
> 
> It is the same undefendable argument as saying you prefer 3% interest instead of 5% interest on your investments because you will be paying more income tax at 5%.


In order to get from 75k/year to 130k/year someone generally has to work harder/longer to set aside all that money and a portion of that extra work is 'wasted' on OAS clawback is what I meant. No its not the end of the world at 15cents on the dollar but if one thinks they are comfortable on 75k/year anyway I'd view it as a bit of a disincentive


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Some seem to have a strange view of OAS. First, it isn't a freebee. The presumption is that if you have lived in Canada then you have spent money in Canada and paid taxes of all types in Canada. OAS is funded by taxes paid during those years. It has nothing whatsoever to do with where do you choose to live after you have retired. Some seem to think if you don't continue to live and spend your money in Canada, then you shouldn't get OAS. Really? Then I guess you would be OK with someone at say age 35 saying, 'hey, I'm planning to move away from Canada when I retire, so I will not be paying that portion of the taxes I pay on gasoline, sales tax, income tax and every other stealth tax you have me paying.'

CPP is just the same only it isn't a hidden tax as the money you pay to fund OAS is. You pay in to CPP while working and after retirement are entitled to a return on that 'investment' if we can call it that. Where you choose to live is totally up to you. Are you suggesting that if someone chooses to live elsewhere, they shouldn't be entitled to collect their CPP or OAS? Really?

Both CPP and OAS are earned while living and working and spending your money in Canada, with the operative word being 'earned.'

What doesn't make sense to me is the clawback. Regardless of how much income someone has after retiring, we all earned our OAS pension amount and all should receive it. It is clawback that is what should annoy people.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

That thought would not remotely enter my mind, and did't. I am clawed back.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

OAS is not an entitlement. It is not dependent on how much you earn or how long you worked. You only have to be resident for 40 years. Quite possibly you could never have had a job or paid a dime in income tax yet you would still be entitled to OAS assuming you lived your life in Canada.

CPP, on the other hand,is an entitlement paid by you and by your various employers. Your CPP amount depends on how many years you contributed and how much you and your employers contributed.

Both of us will have claw backs. Not an issue for us whatsoever. Sure, we will arrange our affairs in such order that we pay the least income tax and avoid as much OAS claw back as possible. But we certainly do not feel 'cheated' in any way if all or part is clawed back.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Ineresting to also consider why someone moving away from Canada should expect to be entitled to OAS?
> 
> Unlike CPP, it is a non-contributory benefit paid out as part of current gov't expenses.
> 
> ...


Umm, why should someone not expect to be entitled to OAS? The flaw in your logic is in the words, " it is a non-contributory benefit paid out as part of current gov't expenses." Well, no, it is not 'non-contributory', if it were, you would not be paying a portion of your taxes to cover it. If you pay taxes you are contributing to OAS payments.

Also, "thus supporting past OAS payouts,". Is also incorrect. current taxes being paid fund current OAS, not past OAS. I don't know of any way that you can fund today, something that happened in the past. Do you?

While it is always paid out of current taxes, your paying for it in past taxes is done in *return* for future taxpayers doing so for you when your turn to collect it comes. Or did you think only past OAS recipients should get it, not future recipients?

It's simply a matter of how you look at it. Anyone who pays any taxes is paying in to OAS and therefore is 'entitled' to expect to be able to collect it when their time comes.

There is no argument for, "being entitled to Canadian old age security if you choose to permanently exit Canada", other than entitlement is dependent on years of residency. No argument is needed. 'Entitlement' is only a bad word if someone expects something they are not entitled to. That is not the case with OAS. You paid in over the years, you are entitled to expect a return just like anyone else.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

ian said:


> OAS is not an entitlement. It is not dependent on how much you earn or how long you worked. You only have to be resident for 40 years. Quite possibly you could never have had a job or paid a dime in income tax yet you would still be entitled to OAS assuming you lived your life in Canada.
> 
> CPP, on the other hand,is an entitlement paid by you and by your various employers. Your CPP amount depends on how many years you contributed and how much you and your employers contributed.
> 
> Both of us will have claw backs. Not an issue for us whatsoever. Sure, we will arrange our affairs in such order that we pay the least income tax and avoid as much OAS claw back as possible. But we certainly do not feel 'cheated' in any way if all or part is clawed back.


Nonsense. Tell me how someone could be resident in Canada and not spend money. Surely you are not trying to suggest that income tax is the only form of taxation that a resident of Canada pays. 

I don't mean to be rude but if anyone really thinks you don't contribute to OAS simply by living in the country, you're delusional. Spend your allowance as a kid and you're even contributing, even before age 18.

OAS is an entitlement as I just wrote above, the entitlement is based on Residency. The government recognizes even if some here don't, that through Residency, the individual has contributed to OAS.

According to your thinking ian, the vast majority of female members of past generations who did not need to have both partners working in order to earn a living, would not be eligible for OAS since all they ever did was be a 'housewife'.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Some seem to have a strange view of OAS. First, it isn't a freebee. The presumption is that if you have lived in Canada then you have spent money in Canada and paid taxes of all types in Canada. OAS is funded by taxes paid during those years. It has nothing whatsoever to do with where do you choose to live after you have retired. Some seem to think if you don't continue to live and spend your money in Canada, then you shouldn't get OAS. Really? Then I guess you would be OK with someone at say age 35 saying, 'hey, I'm planning to move away from Canada when I retire, so I will not be paying that portion of the taxes I pay on gasoline, sales tax, income tax and every other stealth tax you have me paying.'
> CPP is just the same only it isn't a hidden tax as the money you pay to fund OAS is. You pay in to CPP while working and after retirement are entitled to a return on that 'investment' if we can call it that. Where you choose to live is totally up to you. Are you suggesting that if someone chooses to live elsewhere, they shouldn't be entitled to collect their CPP or OAS? Really?
> Both CPP and OAS are earned while living and working and spending your money in Canada, with the operative word being 'earned.'
> What doesn't make sense to me is the clawback. Regardless of how much income someone has after retiring, we all earned our OAS pension amount and all should receive it. It is clawback that is what should annoy people.


Not so. CPP is a pension you and your employer have paid into and thus earned. Not OAS. 

There are a number of places you can read about the difference between CPP and OAS programs, including Jim Yih's: Retire Happy
As he notes, _"One of the big differences between CPP and OAS is that the government does not fund CPP. CPP is really a defined benefit pension plan, which is not part of government assets... OAS on the other hand is a government benefit... Instead the income tax that Canadians pay go into a generally pot which goes to fund various programs, one of which is Old Age Security.
Old Age Security is very different because there is no fund and there is no surplus. OAS payments are paid by current taxpayers. With all the baby boomers turning 65 over the next 20 years, the government is very concerned about the rising cost to fund OAS. According to government reports, OAS is costing the government $36.5 billion dollars. They predict that the cost to fund Old Age Security will triple to $108 billion by 2030. Between CPP and OAS, OAS is more likely to be at risk of change"._

OAS will need to be reformed and its benfits reined in regardless of whether we think we are entitled to it. As noted by others, this is likely to be done on a gradual basis, not 'cold turkey'. THe previous gov't tried reforming it (age 65 > 67) but that change was rolled back by the current gov't. Residency during the years we collect should be part of that discussion.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> ... Also, "thus supporting past OAS payouts,". Is also incorrect. current taxes being paid fund current OAS, not past OAS. I don't know of any way that you can fund today, something that happened in the past. Do you?...


Poor wording on my part. I meant that we have all paid taxes in the past and those taxes supported OAS payments at the time (also in the past) as well as other benefits. 
Just because I helped cover the OAS my parents received through the taxes I paid, doesn't mean I expect my kids to pay for my OAS, and that of the burgeoning senior population. IMO OAS needs to change, as does our expectation of receiving it.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Anything or anyone that pays taxes or fees (including GST) is revenue received by the government, and OAS is funded out of general revenue on an 'as you go' real time basis. None of that means those who have been paying income tax and GST last year, or for the last 10 years is entitled to receive OAS at any time in the future. It is just like an ongoing operational expense for a company or household budget. People have to get over the entitlement mentality. OAS was meant to be an anti-poverty program for seniors on the premise they retired, or had to retire, at 65, and did not have the same ability to earn income any more. The right answer would be to get rid of OAS and significantly enhance the GIS program with some $20 billion or so, both in payout amounts and application (not necessarily age dependent, but means tested at a family level at realistic amounts). Reform will need to come some day to address these issues, as well as address 'rich' people who have accumulated massive capital assets including TFSAs that don't necessarily translate directly into income.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

longtimeago.....you might want to brush up on your reading comprehension. I specifically mentioned income tax. I am quite aware that as consumers we bear a significant tax burden-federal and provincial.

As an aside, I do not think that you can get OAS if you are in jail for more than 2 years. My understanding is that this not the case with CPP payments.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Some seem to have a strange view of OAS. First, it isn't a freebee. The presumption is that if you have lived in Canada then you have spent money in Canada and paid taxes of all types in Canada. OAS is funded by taxes paid during those years. It has nothing whatsoever to do with where do you choose to live after you have retired. Some seem to think if you don't continue to live and spend your money in Canada, then you shouldn't get OAS. Really? Then I guess you would be OK with someone at say age 35 saying, 'hey, I'm planning to move away from Canada when I retire, so I will not be paying that portion of the taxes I pay on gasoline, sales tax, income tax and every other stealth tax you have me paying.'
> 
> CPP is just the same only it isn't a hidden tax as the money you pay to fund OAS is. You pay in to CPP while working and after retirement are entitled to a return on that 'investment' if we can call it that. Where you choose to live is totally up to you. Are you suggesting that if someone chooses to live elsewhere, they shouldn't be entitled to collect their CPP or OAS? Really?
> 
> ...


Completely agree with you! AFAIK, every normal country pays OAS analog to people who moves to another country. My mother and MIL came to Canada from Israel (because we moved here) and getting OAS analog from Israel (that btw greater than my future OAS/CPP combined). So, if my kids gonna move , for example to Australia and I will be moving there too, I shouldn't get OAS after living in Canada for 40 years and paying taxes?! F$#% it! You want Canada to be like Ethiopia or Nigeria?! Good luck with that!

Canada currently has international social security agreements with over 50 countries. If Canada cancels OAS for expat seniors, all those 50 countries will do the same. There are more than 20% Canadians who is foreign born. Any party that gonna mention OAS cancelation for expats, will commit political suicide.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Since we have no idea whether someone who has the financial wherewithal to live ex-Canada is in poverty or not (most likely not if they can afford to live elsewhere), cut them off!


Just wanted to point out that Canada is a very expensive country to live in- it is not just the well-off who choose to retire abroad; one's retirement dollars can go much farther in many, many places. I'm looking at quite a few options abroad to retire, and one of the reasons is I can live better for less.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

indexxx said:


> Just wanted to point out that Canada is a very expensive country to live in- it is not just the well-off who choose to retire abroad; one's retirement dollars can go much farther in many, many places. I'm looking at quite a few options abroad to retire, and one of the reasons is I can live better for less.


In some places yes, in some not. Let's see you moving to Northern Europe or Japan. And it's not Canada's business which country you move. 



> I ask because there has been frequent discussion about the fairness and viability of the current OAS system (esp. re the GIS component)


 agree that expats shouldn't be eligible for GIS and they don't.

P.S. Funny that illegal immigrants are getting $1079/month per single of taxpayer money and Liberals are fine with it


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Guys, by all means retire to a beach in Thailand, Panama or wherever. 
Meanwhile, I can tell you that the working generation left paying taxes in Canada - which includes my kids - will look favourably on a government that controls its spending rather than increasing taxes all the time, and that is socially progressive in looking after those in Canada who truly need assistance.
IOW, don't count on those OAS cheques flowing unchanged into your bank account till death do us part (whether you live here or elsewhere).


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I started this thread to inform or remind people who are considering retiring abroad or have spent significant amounts of time living and working outside of Canada during their working life, of how it can affect OAS. I did not start it to begin a debate on whether or not OAS should continue in the future or whether or not anyone here things someone else is 'entitled' or not. So let's try and stay on topic. If you want to start another topic, I'm sure you all know how to start a new thread.

The law says who is 'entitled' to OAS and that is not arguable. If someone disagrees with the current law, they can speak to their MP and make their view known or run for office themselves.

There are many reasons why people might decide to move to another country when they retire. Weather, cost of living, family connections are probably the most common. Places like Costa Rica, Mexico, etc. are full of Canadian retirees who move for the weather and lower cost of living, as are countries like Greece, Italy, etc. where they have returned to their homeland. 

If you are not contemplating living abroad or have not spent significant amounts of time outside of Canada, living and working, then you have no reason to be commenting in this thread. If it does affect you or your future plans, then perhaps it will prompt you to do some research and/or ask some questions here to help you get clarity of how it will affect any OAS payments you are entitled to.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Longtimeago, that's my fault I'm afraid.

You will find that threads often wander to cover other aspects of the original subject.
I don't think that is a bad thing, just as I don't think questioning the sustainability of OAS in a thread that discusses OAS is off-topic. 

Whether retired in Canada or elsewhere, some like you will continue to assume that particular income stream is incontrovertible, others may consider how a reduction in such income would affect their retirement, whether it would create problems, how they would mitigate it, etc. What-if scenarios, if you will. That is all I was trying to suggest.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Keep in mind that someone who does get part of their OAS clawed back also looses a great deal of the remaining benefit for two reasons. 

The first is their effective marginal tax rate on the remainder. The second is the Age Amount Tax Credit of $7K or so is gradually reduce or eliminated as taxable income increases.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Longtimeago, that's my fault I'm afraid.
> 
> You will find that threads often wander to cover other aspects of the original subject.
> I don't think that is a bad thing, just as I don't think questioning the sustainability of OAS in a thread that discusses OAS is off-topic.
> ...


I understand that sometimes threads take on a life of their own but I think the original message in this case is getting lost. If I were someone interested in the original topic and reading through this so far, I might be afraid to ask a question for fear of getting hammered for daring to consider claiming OAS if they were living abroad.

I agree no income stream is guaranteed, OAS is no different in that respect than the private pension of Sears store retirees which as you probably know just got cut by 30% this past week. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sears-canada-pension-retirees-1.4773283

Every topic has aspects that can be explored but if they stray too far from the original topic, they should become separate discussions when they are no longer a simple 'aside'.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

ian said:


> Keep in mind that someone who does get part of their OAS clawed back also looses a great deal of the remaining benefit for two reasons.
> 
> The first is their effective marginal tax rate on the remainder. The second is the Age Amount Tax Credit of $7K or so is gradually reduce or eliminated as taxable income increases.


Ian, this thread is not about OAS clawback. Nor is it a thread intended for you to demonstrate your vast knowledge of clawback on. Get the hint?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Guys, by all means retire to a beach in Thailand, Panama or wherever.
> Meanwhile, I can tell you that the working generation left paying taxes in Canada - which includes my kids - will look favourably on a government that controls its spending rather than increasing taxes all the time, and that is socially progressive in looking after those in Canada who truly need assistance.
> IOW, don't count on those OAS cheques flowing unchanged into your bank account till death do us part (whether you live here or elsewhere).


You don't understand that Canada will spend much more money if they stop paying OAS to expats. Canada should not pay those expats GIS and they won't be using our , already disastrous, health system.


----------



## BC Eddie (Feb 2, 2014)

gibor365 said:


> P.S. Funny that illegal immigrants are getting $1079/month per single of taxpayer money and Liberals are fine with it


"Illegal" immigrants do not qualify for money. "Legal" refugees do qualify but they get a lot less than $1079/month per person.

see 
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/monthly-refugee-benefits/


----------



## Big Kahuna (Apr 30, 2018)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Guys, by all means retire to a beach in Thailand, Panama or wherever.
> Meanwhile, I can tell you that the working generation left paying taxes in Canada - which includes my kids - will look favourably on a government that controls its spending rather than increasing taxes all the time, and that is socially progressive in looking after those in Canada who truly need assistance.
> IOW, don't count on those OAS cheques flowing unchanged into your bank account till death do us part (whether you live here or elsewhere).


Just because you want something doesn't make it happen-the increasing flow of poor, unemployable people into Canada (your social progression) will make limiting or stopping OAS less politically likely, not more likely. Taxes will increase dramatically-especially consumption taxes. No way to stop it at this point short of a total reset.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Indeed...Canada would do better to pay retirees to become expats. 
As for someone mentioning our next generation will be more fiscally conservative....lolol.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

BC Eddie said:


> "Illegal" immigrants do not qualify for money. "Legal" refugees do qualify but they get a lot less than $1079/month per person.
> 
> see
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/monthly-refugee-benefits/


Really?! 



> Kamal Takkouch, here three months from Lebanon, said as a single person, he receives $1,079 a month.


https://torontosun.com/news/local-n...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1533842176

and they also complaining that life in Toronto is expensive  .... Then why are you living in Toronto?! Go to Thunder Bay or Maritimes, it's much cheaper there.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Eder said:


> Indeed...Canada would do better to pay retirees to become expats.


Sure! Canada should encourage retirees to become expats!


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

indexxx said:


> Just wanted to point out that Canada is a very expensive country to live in- it is not just the well-off who choose to retire abroad; one's retirement dollars can go much farther in many, many places. I'm looking at quite a few options abroad to retire, and one of the reasons is I can live better for less.


That is my point. Since OAS is an anti-poverty program, and if the cost of living is much less abroad, then these Canadians who choose to retire abroad don't need OAS (or as much OAS) as an anti-poverty measure. We should not confuse 'social security' with pension plans. They are different things.

Added: As I have stated before, I believe in taxpayer support of 'income supplement' programs to help keep retirees out of poverty, but not to those who have the means to a comfortable retirement with their own resources.


----------



## Big Kahuna (Apr 30, 2018)

AltaRed said:


> That is my point. Since OAS is an anti-poverty program, and if the cost of living is much less abroad, then these Canadians who choose to retire abroad don't need OAS (or as much OAS) as an anti-poverty measure. We should not confuse 'social security' with pension plans. They are different things.


Several posters have already explained to you the huge cost savings to the country by reduced healthcare expenses. The math isn't very complicated.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I don't think Canadians view OAS as anything other than our God given right....look at how voters reacted when Harper reasonably wanted to defer OAS till age 67...
Things never change....whoever promises the most free money will win elections.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Just to clarify, I originally posted to add to the discussion of OAS rules/limitations pointing out you may want to consider that the plan can be changed at the whim of the government. That could involve changes in the residency eligibilty requirements that were noted in the original post, or it could involve changes in eligible income levels or in age (per the gradual changes in age of eligibilty that were announced in 2012 and then reversed in 2016).

I may have given the impression that I think OAS should be scrapped entirely and abruptly. Obviously that is unlikely, but *gradual changes* to reduce its increasing future cost (if not its absolute cost) should not be unexpected. 
The idea that expats should be cutoff is distracting and similarly unlikely. You are likely to remain in the same boat (sinking or floating) as the rest of us.

I hope that none of you feels so entitled as to think that you should receive full OAS regardless of your retirement income, or that it should not be changed *over time* if government finances warrant such changes.


----------



## Big Kahuna (Apr 30, 2018)

Eder said:


> I don't think Canadians view OAS as anything other than our God given right....look at how voters reacted when Harper reasonably wanted to defer OAS till age 67...
> Things never change....whoever promises the most free money will win elections.


If we continue to give illegal immigrants (criminals) over a thousand dollars a month from the taxpayer as a reward for breaking our laws I fail to see how any politician is going to be able to justify cutting OAS.


----------



## Big Kahuna (Apr 30, 2018)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Just to clarify, I originally posted to add to the discussion of OAS rules/limitations pointing out you may want to consider that the plan can be changed at the whim of the government. That could involve changes in the residency eligibilty requirements that were noted in the original post, or it could involve changes in eligible income levels or in age (per the gradual changes in age of eligibilty that were announced in 2012 and then reversed in 2016).
> 
> I may have given the impression that I think OAS should be scrapped entirely and abruptly. Obviously that is unlikely, but *gradual changes* to reduce its increasing future cost (if not its absolute cost) should not be unexpected.
> The idea that expats should be cutoff is distracting and similarly unlikely.
> ...


You keep typing the same nonsense with no evidence to back up your claims. As for entitled, I would expect older Canadians to feel just as entitled as the illegal immigrants (criminals) you feel should be priority number one of this nation.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Just to clarify, I originally posted to add to the discussion of OAS rules/limitations pointing out you may want to consider that the plan can be changed at the whim of the government. That could involve changes in the residency eligibilty requirements that were noted in the original post, or it could involve changes in eligible income levels or in age (per the gradual changes in age of eligibilty that were announced in 2012 and then reversed in 2016).
> 
> I may have given the impression that I think OAS should be scrapped entirely and abruptly. Obviously that is unlikely, but *gradual changes* to reduce its increasing future cost (if not its absolute cost) should not be unexpected.
> The idea that expats should be cutoff is distracting and similarly unlikely. You are likely to remain in the same boat (sinking or floating) as the rest of us.
> ...


Good way to summarize it in an objective way.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

OAS is not "anti-poverty program" , GIS is.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

gibor365 said:


> OAS is not "anti-poverty program" , GIS is.


Please read the history of OAS and you will see its original intent before it lost its way. I will opine that GIS likely came about because OAS was too hot to touch once the genie was out of the bottle (pull back from more wealthy seniors). Either way, it is pretty clear too many people are entrenched about OAS to have objectivity. As of now, per the original post in this thread, people are free to live abroad with OAS in tow.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> Really?!
> 
> https://torontosun.com/news/local-n...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1533842176
> 
> and they also complaining that life in Toronto is expensive  .... Then why are you living in Toronto?! Go to Thunder Bay or Maritimes, it's much cheaper there.


That dude is a refugee, it says so right in the article. That makes him a legal immigrant, not illegal.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Spudd said:


> That dude is a refugee, it says so right in the article. That makes him a legal immigrant, not illegal.


He cannot be legal immigrant, as he's 3 months in Canada and should be court hearing to define his legality.... In any case,it doesn't matter, some dude landed here and right away getting more than 1K per month...and looks like no intention to work. Legal independent immigrants are getting nothing. So, "this dude" , without contributing to society, most likely gets more cash than average Canadian retiree get in OAS+CPP combined. This is a joke!


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Please read the history of OAS and you will see its original intent before it lost its way. I will opine that GIS likely came about because OAS was too hot to touch once the genie was out of the bottle (pull back from more wealthy seniors). Either way, it is pretty clear too many people are entrenched about OAS to have objectivity. As of now, per the original post in this thread, people are free to live abroad with OAS in tow.


Alta, who cares about history?! As I said before, all normal countries have OAS analog for retirees that considered as "basic retiree income".

In any case, no point to argue about it.... no government will ever cancel existing rule about expats eligibility for OAS.


----------



## Big Kahuna (Apr 30, 2018)

gibor365 said:


> He cannot be legal immigrant, as he's 3 months in Canada and should be court hearing to define his legality.... In any case,it doesn't matter, some dude landed here and right away getting more than 1K per month...and looks like no intention to work. Legal independent immigrants are getting nothing. So, "this dude" , without contributing to society, most likely gets more cash than average Canadian retiree get in OAS+CPP combined. This is a joke!


It is not a joke-this is "social progression" -this is how we show that Canada is caring and gentle and kindly.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

gibor365 said:


> Alta, who cares about history?! As I said before, all normal countries have OAS analog for retirees that considered as "basic retiree income".


I don't argue against basic retiree income. I do object to those who can earn $75k without a dollar of claw back and over $120k before it is all clawed back. Add a spouse and one could double those numbers - imagine up to $150k without a cent of claw back. That is not how to spend taxpayer money and that is what needs to be fixed. So I'll leave it at that.....


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Add a spouse and one could double those numbers - imagine up to $150k without a cent of claw back....


Except that for each spouse to get half is not realistic. Because each taxpayer is dealt with individually. Most likely it will be an uneven split like $90k/$60k so the clawback will be around $2250, not zero. At $100k/$50k, it will be $3750. And no deductions can help. Nor income splitting.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

True, but the point is a couple can have very significant income without any, or very little claw back. Why does the taxpayer put up with that? Indeed, even at an overall income of $75k, no person or couple needs taxpayer support. Bottom line is OAS thresholds are way too generous at higher income levels.


----------



## Big Kahuna (Apr 30, 2018)

AltaRed said:


> True, but the point is a couple can have very significant income without any, or very little claw back. Why does the taxpayer put up with that? Indeed, even at an overall income of $75k, no person or couple needs taxpayer support. Bottom line is OAS thresholds are way too generous at higher income levels.


Bringing in millions and millions of people to permanently put on the public dole is a huge taxpayer support to Weston (just one example). Loblaws doesn't care if your money for their product came from the government (taxpayer pocket). Weston just wants millions more here.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

The variance in opinions and beliefs on this thread is simply a cross-section of Canadians in general. Airing them here is in fact just a waste of your time and energy and a good display of the ignorance of most of the population.

The thread was a simple explanation of how OAS works for those for whom it may be of interest. You guys have hi-jacked it into a political debate. Congratulations on a job poorly done.

I think I'll start a new thread now on 'retiring abroad' and see what that gets you all fired up about. Given that most of you have probably never lived in another country and have a very small view of the world from your bubbles, no doubt you will have as many incorrect opinions on that as well.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Okay, fair enough. It did get derailed and I was a key culpirt. However, most (all) of what was in the first post is already known, especially by those who have ex-Canada experience.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

AltaRed said:


> Okay, fair enough. It did get derailed and I was a key culpirt. However, most (all) of what was in the first post is already known, especially by those who have ex-Canada experience.


You are far from alone AltaRed and I am not really bothered other than seeing it as a waste of time other than for some to vent. I do think though that it could discourage those who are interested in retiring abroad, if they read all this and then are afraid to ask questions for fear of being 'gang attacked'. Know what I mean?


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

Forums work like this. People get off on side conversations. Policing the thread will just annoy everyone.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Spudd said:


> Forums work like this. People get off on side conversations. Policing the thread will just annoy everyone.


LOL, well umm, does that mean I should let people annoy me but not annoy them in return Spudd? If you feel annoyed that you are being 'policed' (presumably by me), then get annoyed. Or, go get your own thread started. Either one is fine by me.

I can't believe you actually tried to suggest I am at fault for trying to 'police' a thread I started. I shouldn't have to 'police' others Spudd, they should have the decency to stay on topic. But I guess I'm expecting to much of people huh.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Living abroad and impact on OAS

To continue to receive OAS you must;

Have lived in Canada for at least 20 years after age 18 - therefore collecting at least 50% OAS


If less than 20 in Canada you must have lived/ worked in a country with a reciprocal agreement to make it at least 20. (your OAS will still only be based on your years in Canada).


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> The variance in opinions and beliefs on this thread is simply a cross-section of Canadians in general. Airing them here is in fact just *a waste of your time* and energy and a *good display of the ignorance* of most of the population.
> The thread was a simple explanation of how OAS works for those for whom it may be of interest. You guys have hi-jacked it into a political debate. Congratulations on *a job poorly done*.
> I think I'll start a new thread now on 'retiring abroad' and see what that gets you all fired up about. Given that most of you have probably never lived in another country and *have a very small view of the world from your bubbles*, no doubt you will have as *many incorrect opinions* on that as well.


You need an attitude adjustment.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> In some places yes, in some not. Let's see you moving to Northern Europe or Japan. And it's not Canada's business which country you move.
> 
> agree that expats shouldn't be eligible for GIS and they don't.
> 
> P.S. Funny that illegal immigrants are getting $1079/month per single of taxpayer money and Liberals are fine with it


I'm looking around the Mediterranean. My favourite area in the world. Can be surprisingly cheap depending on how you live.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

indexxx said:


> I'm looking around the Mediterranean. My favourite area in the world. Can be surprisingly cheap depending on how you live.


Mine 2 . I'd like to retire or at least to go for a long term vacations to Southern Spain (Malaga, Grenada area), Portugal or Croatia



> Within 30 days of arriving in Spain, all non-EU/EEA and Swiss citizens who want to stay for longer than three months must apply for a residence card/permit (Tarjeta de Residencia or TIE). You have to apply at the Foreigner’s Office (Oficina de Extranjeros) or police station in the province where you’re living.


 Curious how difficult to get such permit for Canadian


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

indexxx said:


> I'm looking around the Mediterranean. My favourite area in the world. Can be surprisingly cheap depending on how you live.





gibor365 said:


> Mine 2 . I'd like to retire or at least to go for a long term vacations to Southern Spain (Malaga, Grenada area), Portugal or Croatia
> 
> Curious how difficult to get such permit for Canadian


You may want to check out the new thread I just started on what to watch out for when retiring abroad.

You do indeed have to research what is required to get legal residency in whatever country you are considering. I can tell you that it is not easy for a Canadian to get legal residency in any W. European country these days. Basically it boils down to money. But you can find all the info you need if you look at some Expat forums.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

We found Croatia to be very similar to western Canada. And it is inexpensive by European standards.

But Malaga is lovely as are many of the other places mentioned.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> You may want to check out the new thread I just started on what to watch out for when retiring abroad.
> 
> You do indeed have to research what is required to get legal residency in whatever country you are considering. I can tell you that it is not easy for a Canadian to get legal residency in any W. European country these days. Basically it boils down to money. But you can find all the info you need if you look at some Expat forums.


For example for Spain you need to apply for Non-lucrative residence visa. http://www.exteriores.gob.es/Embaja...rmvisas/Pages/Nonlucrativeresidencevisas.aspx
As I said in the other thread too much hassle... You don't need Visa if staying up to 90 days in 180 days. So you can stay for 3 months than move back to Canada/US or go to non-Schengen country like Switzerland , Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Romania...


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

kcowan said:


> We found Croatia to be very similar to western Canada. And it is inexpensive by European standards.
> 
> But Malaga is lovely as are many of the other places mentioned.


Long term vacations rentals (3 months +) in Malaga and area (as well as in Portugal) are rather cheap.... you can find nice condo for 200-300EUR/months.


----------



## ArchViz (May 14, 2018)

gibor365 said:


> Long term vacations rentals (3 months +) in Malaga and area (as well as in Portugal) are rather cheap.... you can find nice condo for 200-300EUR/months.


Gibor, I used to spend a few months a year in southern Spain.
I find Malaga is much too touristy, expensive and the beaches terrible. If you want a better experience, try further south on the costa de la luz. It's less exploited, has much nicer beaches and during the off season much cheaper. 
If you want something different, the northern region, Galicia is relatively unknown but has much cheaper accommodation, incredible food and wines. Portugal is also another great option.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

ArchViz said:


> Gibor, I used to spend a few months a year in southern Spain.
> I find Malaga is much too touristy, expensive and the beaches terrible. If you want a better experience, try further south on the costa de la luz. It's less exploited, has much nicer beaches and during the off season much cheaper.
> If you want something different, the northern region, Galicia is relatively unknown but has much cheaper accommodation, incredible food and wines. Portugal is also another great option.


Thanks , but when I say Malaga, i don't mean city itself...Advantage of Malaga is major international airport and train station. Galicia is nice, but not really warm in winter.... imho Cadiz is a good option too


----------

