Ask a simple question

by Aaron Wherry

Here are four of the first five questions asked by the NDP yesterday afternoon.

Will he rise in his seat and say to the country that the age of eligibility for OAS will not be raised to age 67, yes or no?

Will he raise OAS eligibility to 67 years, yes or no?

There is enough money for tax gifts for large corporations, but now seniors will have to wait until the age of 67 to get their $540 a month? Yes or no?

Is the eligibility age going to increase to 67, yes or no?

None of those questions received straight answers. The House did though spend the day discussing the pension system and Old Age Security—starting here, resuming here. For whatever it might foretell or explain, Diane Finley’s speech on behalf of the government is here.

The Finance Minister seems intent on doing something. A poll conducted by Ipsos Reid found 74% disapproved of raising the eligibility age to 67.




Browse

Ask a simple question

  1. I don’t understand what’s going on with OAS, exactly. Harper/Cons have been rather milquetoast for the past six years and now all of a sudden they are taking on pensioners and their money? Doesn’t really make sense. 

    I wonder if this is part of plan to reform MP and public employee pensions – if pensioners are having their entitlements changed, squawking from unions about blessed public employees will be ineffective and will make NDP look foolish and out of touch.

    • It’s classic CPC misdirection. Rumors are leaked about drastic, even catastrophic cuts to a politically sensitive program (OAS), causing the Opposition, the media, and most importantly the citizens affected to fear and assume the worst, and thus rail loudly against it. After several days (or possibly weeks, depending on the issue), members of the PMO’s sock-puppet brigade (formerly known as the Cabinet) appear, making ridiculous claims that run contrary to the claims of other PMO sock-puppets (and occasionally their own recorded statements.) Finally, Dear Leader speaks to the little people, insisting in a completely condescending tone not to worry, it’s just the evil opposition being all evil by opposing the brilliance that is Stephen Harper. Then, when it seems like nobody is looking, a press release comes out at 4:55 p.m. ET that a huge chunk of taxpayer money has been frittered away on some asinine notion that nobody voted for or even wants.

      In other words, expect a doozy press release later today.

  2. Harper is turning us into a USA state and your surprised??? The writing was on the wall and you chose to ingnore it. Since when is this goverment has ever listen to reports or consultations. Since when did they ever consult anybody to do anything. You voted for them endure them now, four more years. Cat food for the senoir is around the corner. You can thank your beloved westerner Harper.

    • Ahh yes, Harper is evil because he’s a Westerner.

      • Hey its with the western vision we’re being govern with . REFORM everything, without consultation. Does democracy rings any bells. Am i lying??

        • Grammar FAIL.

      • Well he’s the one who proposed building a firewall around Alberta. As a Canadian (and born and bred Albertan) I’d say that was evil.

        • And he’s not building a firewall now, nor does he propose to.  Does that mean he’s no longer evil?

          • I don’t ever recall him disavowing himself from those sentiments. I guess his thoughts still stand.

        • I wouldn’t waste my time answering these people when they don’t like what you have to say;  they attack you personaly , call you names or grammar lol, that doesn’t change my pocket book but Harper will.

          • It’s the Con way. Bully, deny, blame, harass….

  3. The government has no business trying to change the OAP until it is ready to get it’s own house in order and make some changes to their own pension plan. Instead of 55, they should be able to collect at 67. Instead of having guaranteed interest on their fund every year, it should be treated the same as any other pension plan and earn interest as the market will bear. They should have to work far more than 6 years to be eligible for the pension. After 6 years with any company, the pension that a taxpayer would receive would be miniscule. They get a minimum of $40,000.00. This is just sinfull when there are seniors living at or below the poverty line. These people are self-indugent and greedy and I have no idea where they get the idea that they are entitiled to this and the rest of us can starve.

  4. Harper is just a badly baked Thatcher. Vastly short of both the charm or the intelligence of the tight fisted Iron Lady. Cutting the pension is not needed nor will it be helpful. These Right Wing Chacago School economics didn’t work last time round. they are not working for Washington State or Wisconsin because they use Granma’s economic plan everyone knbows a Granny with plenty of cash tucked away who lets all the property fall down because she she say looking after the pennies is the way forward. Wealth gets destroyed because Wealth creation/retention is not cash-flow neither is it simple. Which is why a simpleton like Flaherty should not be in charge of our nations wealth.

  5. The pensions of an MP or anyone else’s  pension plans should be kept out of this discussion envy should not enter into the discussion. What we are talking about is the very foundation of state welfare. It started with pensions for the poor then moved on to Health then on to EI. The part of welfare that needs to be addressed is the subsidies to multi national companies that is income supplements for low paid workers. If Wally, Macy D’s etc want to do business in Canada they should have to pay a decent minimum wage after all they are not the cheapest these days.

    • You do know that there are minimum wage laws in Canada, right?

    • “The pensions of an MP or anyone else’s  pension plans should be kept out of this discussion envy should not enter into the discussion. What we are talking about is the very foundation of state welfare.”

      MP’s pensions are the very definition of state welfare.

  6. I’m pretty sure changes to the OAS won’t affect anyone born before April 30 1959. Anyone born after that  better stock up on dog food.

    • The histrionics coming from the opposition is making a whole lot of you look foolish.

      • Didn’t you just say up above that if we don’t do something about the OAS it’ll be bankrupt within 30 years?

    • After a week of knee-jerk spazzing out, the brighter lights in the socialist media are beginning to clue in that there are valid evidence-based reasons for raising the OAS age.  The socialist commenters here are another matter.

      This is beautiful: socialists knee-jerk opposing evidence based policy and making asses of themselves to a degree that their fanboysgirlstransgendered in the media are calling them out.  Even Susan Riley is critical of the opposition in her column today.  

      OAS cutoff for clawback is $67K and gently progresses to the point where it is collected by those earning over $100K, not to mention and seniors below that with million dollar properties.

      Toby, you’re suggesting that a program that is not wealth tested and barely means tested and which cuts a cheque to seniors a) making $65K, b) owning quarter million dollar homes mortgage free, and c) holding tens and hundreds of thousands in RRSPs and investments will lead them to eat dog food.  The only dogfood here is the Gainsburger of partisanship that is your hysterical response.  We already have a GIS for low income seniors and if you were smarter and more empathetic you’d be arguing for more means testing of seniors programs.

      If you need further help learning about evidence-based social justice, I’m here for you.

  7. This debate needs to be framed properly. The debate shouldn’t be about when you qualify for OAS, it should be around weather we want OAS to be around in 30-40 years at all. Because if we just continue with the status quo, it’ll be bankrupt and gone long before then.

    • Rick, this debate will not be framed properly on these comment boards, I can assure you.  The Wherryites will continue on with their spiralling groupthink.

      • Accusing them of groupthink implies that someone’s actually put thought into all of the histrionics. I highly doubt that’s the case.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *