Wouldn't those retired people be very aware of the fact that it was the Conservatives that raised the retirement age to 67?  Not exactly an audience receptive to voting for the party that wanted them to work two years longer (while PP himself has already earned a million dollar pension from taxpayers by age 30-something).
 

Poilievre has stated repeatedly that retirement age will remain at 65. 

I listened to this as it was broadcast live on am740. Znaimer mentioned the retirement age change earlier in his introduction.

His brief speech begins about halfway on this podcast.

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/conservative-leader-pierre-poilievre-addresses-carp/id1451843877?i=1000704351762

From inception and under the guidance of MZ, CityTV had presented itself on the political left regarding civic and, obviously, social matters. I think back to all the airtime given to councilman Jack Layton. Etc and so much more. The essence of his remarks though was the question that every lifetime Canadian is asking, "What happened to Canada and who is responsible?"

TomTV wrote:

Wouldn't those retired people be very aware of the fact that it was the Conservatives that raised the retirement age to 67?  Not exactly an audience receptive to voting for the party that wanted them to work two years longer (while PP himself has already earned a million dollar pension from taxpayers by age 30-something).
 

Canada does not have a mandatory "retirement age" for most workers. You can legally work past 65, work past 67 etc., unless you are in a rare job that involves enough physicality that the employer can legally get an exemption to require an earlier age cutoff for that type of work.
More than a decade ago, the Harper government proposed raising the earliest starting age for Old Age Security monthly payments to 67 from 65 to make the plan sustainable, similar to what many other countries were doing, on the basis that people are living longer than they used to, and because OAS is funded from general revenues, and not through worker contributions like the Canada Pension Plan and workplace pensions. The plan was dropped due to opposition.
But where are we at a decade later, now that most baby boomers have started collecting, or are soon to collect, OAS? We still have the age 65 OAS start age but the federal deficit has mushroomed to $61 billion; in other words the government has been borrowing and printing money just to keep the OAS start age at 65 instead of 67 as more baby boomers reached age 65.
Just last month the C.D. Howe Institute issued a report recommending that the earliest start date for pension benefits be delayed to 67, and not because of the cost with people living longer lives but instead to address expected labour shortages as Canada's population ages. 
https://cdhowe.org/publication/2024-labour-market-review-challenges-trends-and-policy-solutions-for-canada/
And kids if you don't know or remember who C.D. Howe was, you should google it because you might be surprised by what his political affiliation was.
I suspect Moses Znaimer understands the bigger picture here.
 

Last edited by DX (April 23, 2025 10:12 am)

DX wrote:

TomTV wrote:

Wouldn't those retired people be very aware of the fact that it was the Conservatives that raised the retirement age to 67?  Not exactly an audience receptive to voting for the party that wanted them to work two years longer (while PP himself has already earned a million dollar pension from taxpayers by age 30-something).
 

Canada does not have a mandatory "retirement age" for most workers. You can legally work past 65, work past 67 etc., unless you are in a rare job that involves enough physicality that the employer can legally get an exemption to require an earlier age cutoff for that type of work.
More than a decade ago, the Harper government proposed raising the earliest starting age for Old Age Security monthly payments to 67 from 65 to make the plan sustainable, similar to what many other countries were doing, on the basis that people are living longer than they used to, and because OAS is funded from general revenues, and not through worker contributions like the Canada Pension Plan and workplace pensions. The plan was dropped due to opposition.
But where are we at a decade later, now that most baby boomers have started collecting, or are soon to collect, OAS? We still have the age 65 OAS start age but the federal deficit has mushroomed to $61 billion; in other words the government has been borrowing and printing money just to keep the OAS start age at 65 instead of 67 as more baby boomers reached age 65.
Just last month the C.D. Howe Institute issued a report recommending that the earliest start date for pension benefits be delayed to 67, and not because of the cost with people living longer lives but instead to address expected labour shortages as Canada's population ages. 
https://cdhowe.org/publication/2024-labour-market-review-challenges-trends-and-policy-solutions-for-canada/
And kids if you don't know or remember who C.D. Howe was, you should google it because you might be surprised by what his political affiliation was.
I suspect Moses Znaimer understands the bigger picture here.
 

O.A.S. at 65 please and thanks. NOT 67.

I'm, at 69, still working full time. In my younger days, I was a radio dj, and lived a life of indulgence, fast cars, motorcycles and wimmin. I didn't listen to my dad, and started any savings plan, just living for  the day, not worrying about tomorrow. Well, tomorrow is here, OAS and CCP do not cover my monthly expenses, so off to work I go every weekday morning at 8am. I give thanks to the good Lord my son and daughter didn't follow in my footsteps and are both financially savvy. My son is a CPA, my daughter a lawyer. Helping them through university cost me alot, but it was worth every penny. 

mic'em wrote:

I'm, at 69, still working full time. In my younger days, I was a radio dj, and lived a life of indulgence, fast cars, motorcycles and wimmin. I didn't listen to my dad, and started any savings plan, just living for  the day, not worrying about tomorrow. Well, tomorrow is here, OAS and CCP do not cover my monthly expenses, so off to work I go every weekday morning at 8am. I give thanks to the good Lord my son and daughter didn't follow in my footsteps and are both financially savvy. My son is a CPA, my daughter a lawyer. Helping them through university cost me alot, but it was worth every penny. 

I am glad that I listened to my dad and started an RRSP in my late 20's because the 19K [before taxes] I receive for OAS and CPP would cover my hydro and extremely cheap rent for the year, but very little else.

The problem here is that when the federal Liberals proposed  changing the capital gains tax to tax the wealthy more and raise more money that could be used to fund things like OAS (and support for Ukraine), the Conservatives instantly used it as a vector to attack the government with. Mark Carney then had to drop the idea completely since it would be political suicide in an election year.

So we can't tax the wealthy more to reduce the debt because the Cons will exploit it to get themselves elected (they already got a lot of mileage with an uninformed populace by harping on the so-called cost of the carbon levy), nobody wants to work 2 more years than they already do before getting their OAS (not when they see politicians in all the parties getting sweet pensions off the taxpayer dime), nobody wants to pay more taxes period, etc.  It's a political stalemate.

The solution isn't electing a right-wing federal government to solve that growing debt by the way. In Ontario, we already have soaring debt ($408 billion) but Ford had no problem issuing $200 bribes to the voters before the election, even though the vast majority of the $3.2 billion cost will be paid for by borrowing money to cover it. Not exactly "fiscally responsible" but Ford was in deep trouble over all his multiple scandals and a bribe is a great way to make people forget.

I note that Trudeau was ready to do something similar, even though he knew it would be fiscally irresponsible, but likely realized that the PCs were winning over voters through the tactic and had no choice but to match it. I would've liked the extra cash, but I'm glad that the Liberals didn't do it.

There's no route out of that debt unless the opposition parties will agree not to use whatever painful solution that the ruling government comes up with, as a future election tactic. And we know that's never going to happen.



 

Last edited by TomTV (April 27, 2025 4:26 pm)

Dial Twister is my poster of the day. Well, technically the 23rd and today.

Indeed, paterson1, and I'll trust the guy whose signature is on much of our money to get the deficit and the debt under control.

There is no shortage of money collected by the Federal Gov't. The 'Other Expenses' below represents $105 Billion of discretionary Ottawa spending. It is used essentially as a slush fund to procure loyalty (votes) and sometimes peacock; 'Hey Trevor, does $50 Million work for you? Lets do it.' - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau December 2nd 2018.

You can have good OAS. A balanced budget requires priorities.

Yes he is, just has gray hair and a bald spot now.