[Regina]

Lemmy Lemmy:

He's my age on full pension. It's a hell of a lot easier to critize someone else's working conditions than one's own, isn't it?

Very true!

[ShepherdsDog]

Our landlord retired as a Major from the Taiwanese military. He has a full pension from them and lives in New Zealand, where he runs a gas station/convenience store out in the boonies. His wife is a nurse there as well, and she's only a few years older than I am. He comes back to Taiwan whenever he needs any medical or dental work done because it is free for him.

[andyt]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

andyt andyt:

I do not understand why somebody earning 67k a month when retired should be getting full OAS. Lower the income on at which OAS is clawed back, rather than raise the age.

A month, that's a year, and 67k gross isn't all that high these days, besides, OAS is supposed to be universal, just a the liberals's national day care program was universal. It ceased to be universal when they brought in clawback, but I'm good with the current clawback threshold, every little bit counts...

OAS is a government payout, like welfare. 67k a year for a single, retired person is plenty. That's the place to cut right there.

[bootlegga]

On further examination, there is some disappointment in this - it won't affect the Baby Boomers at all - which is the biggest demographic in Canada.

Still, I have no problem with it in theory, it should just kick in ASAP, not in another decade when the savings are far less.

[Scape]

Under 30K should not be subject to this. How can they possibly put away on that income?

[andyt]

Scape Scape:

Under 30K should not be subject to this. How can they possibly put away on that income?

I don't think that makes sense. What year would you use to determine earnings whether you qualify for getting OAS at 65 or 67? This isn't about people putting money away, it' about making them work longer before they can collect. I think it's better to get the same savings by clawing back the OAS at a lower level of post retirement income. And it's already true that if you delay your retirement, the annual payout is larger. Make OAS a part of that, if they want - ie OAS increases if you delay retirement too. But there needs to be a provision that people who need to retire early for health reasons can still get a decent amount of income.

[gonavy47]

How long does one have to put their life on the line to get a pension? It's a little different when you look at it that way isn't it?

[Freakinoldguy]

gonavy47 gonavy47:

How long does one have to put their life on the line to get a pension? It's a little different when you look at it that way isn't it?

When I enlisted I don't remember a sign out front at the recruiting center saying that civilians like the ones on this board who continually complain about military pensions couldn't enlist.

Hell alot of them could still enlist, but then again they'd have to make a committment to their country and give up some of their personal freedoms and perks which isn't gonna happen when it's alot easier to sit back and bitch.

[Lemmy]

Who's bitching? The only bitching anyone's done about others' working conditions is gonavy47.

[eureka]

A modest reversal of the tax reductions for the wealthy would have made any claim that this is necessary show its absurdity.

[EyeBrock]

They should means test OAS.

Really, I don't envisage not having OAS as a make-or-break part of my retirement. If the Feds aimed the OAS at people that really need it and stop paying out to those that don't, I think it would be something I can get behind. It's basically welfare for the over 65/67's anyway.

[PimpBrewski123]

Politicians should at least lead by example, that is reduction in their own gold-plated pension plans and those of bureaucrats before considering that of regular tax payers.

[Unsound]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

They should means test OAS.

Really, I don't envisage not having OAS as a make-or-break part of my retirement. If the Feds aimed the OAS at people that really need it and stop paying out to those that don't, I think it would be something I can get behind. It's basically welfare for the over 65/67's anyway.

This. I'm so far from retirement it doesn't much matter to me anyway, but I've never thought the gov't would be my only source of income when I do. It's great to have that option for those who can't take care of themselves, whether due to poor luck or poor planning, but it really should be a last resort kind of thing.

As for raising the age, it's about time. People are living and working longer and government programs need to address that reality.

[gonavy47]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Who's bitching? The only bitching anyone's done about others' working conditions is gonavy47.

Who's bitching? I only stated that it was about time federal employees got treated like everyone else. Guilty conscience?

[Bodah]

They can raise it to 70 for all I care, either way I plan to retire at 60 the latest, 55 the earliest and intend to live like Richard Proenneke and won't need that much cash. But what I do need is some fucking remote land to buy, and it would appear the government of Canada won't even let me pay rent to squat on any of it.

"Yours to discover?" my ass.