Woah.  Thank you for posting this.  It’s rare I come across an article that makes me rethink my stance on things.  Always good to be reminded that ideology makes fools of us all. Â
FuggleyBrew on
So the article claims it can pay for itself and points to poverty, but OAS is not a poverty alleviation measure. Paying a couple earning 180k (90k each) an extra $140 per month doesn’t alleviate poverty, it increases income for those individuals. To pay for it, we will take that money out of far more deserving areas to spend on.
The further argument, that old people get sick so therefore we should give them more money is a non sequitor. The aforementioned couple is no safer from covid because their income is higher.
>As many as 4.4 million seniors younger than 75 years old could benefit from a boost to OAS. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says boosting OAS payments for seniors under 75 years old will cost $16 billion over five years, or about 82 per cent of the amount that the proposed federal capital gains tax change will generate.
Why should the fact we have added a tax therefore be a justification to give that money to seniors? Other than that the author personally wants more money.
>The stakes could not be higher. If we fail to forge a consensus on retirement benefits by the end of the month, we risk an election that may see a new government less inclined to support social policy, including child care, school lunches, pay equity, paid leave, dental and pharmacare.
The stakes can absolutely be higher, there’s a current example in the US.
2 Comments
Woah.  Thank you for posting this.  It’s rare I come across an article that makes me rethink my stance on things.  Always good to be reminded that ideology makes fools of us all. Â
So the article claims it can pay for itself and points to poverty, but OAS is not a poverty alleviation measure. Paying a couple earning 180k (90k each) an extra $140 per month doesn’t alleviate poverty, it increases income for those individuals. To pay for it, we will take that money out of far more deserving areas to spend on.
The further argument, that old people get sick so therefore we should give them more money is a non sequitor. The aforementioned couple is no safer from covid because their income is higher.
>As many as 4.4 million seniors younger than 75 years old could benefit from a boost to OAS. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says boosting OAS payments for seniors under 75 years old will cost $16 billion over five years, or about 82 per cent of the amount that the proposed federal capital gains tax change will generate.
Why should the fact we have added a tax therefore be a justification to give that money to seniors? Other than that the author personally wants more money.
>The stakes could not be higher. If we fail to forge a consensus on retirement benefits by the end of the month, we risk an election that may see a new government less inclined to support social policy, including child care, school lunches, pay equity, paid leave, dental and pharmacare.
The stakes can absolutely be higher, there’s a current example in the US.