PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[kEiThZ]

Opinion: Canada’s new defence policy commits to exploring, instead of committing

The government’s new policy proposes only ‘exploring’ many new capabilities, adding up to a failure to meet NATO spending targets

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[jje1000]

Justin Trudeau: How to fix the broken temporary foreign worker program​

The Liberal leader says the program must be scaled back and refocused on its original purpose: to fill jobs on a limited basis when no Canadian workers can be found.
May 5, 2014

Throughout our history, Canada’s immigration policy has brought people here who had a pathway to citizenship. They were — and are — nation builders. It has been supported by political parties of all stripes, and promoted by successive governments over generations.

With their mismanagement of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, the Conservatives have done serious damage to that commitment.

Abuse is not rare. It is far too common, and it must end immediately. Here is how to do it.

First, the Temporary Foreign Worker Program needs to be scaled back dramatically over time, and refocused on its original purpose: to fill jobs on a limited basis when no Canadian workers can be found.

Second, Canada needs to re-commit itself to bringing permanent immigrants here who have a path to citizenship. This would return us back to first principles and the purpose of immigration: nation building.

Third, we must also create real transparency and accountability in the program. This should begin with a full review of the program by the Auditor General. We must tighten the foreign worker approvals process, through the disclosure of applications and approvals of temporary foreign workers. This can be facilitated with the public disclosure of information concerning what jobs are being offered to temporary foreign workers and in what communities.

Fourth, we must require that employers applying to the program have clearly attempted to fill job vacancies with Canadian workers, particularly young Canadians whose unemployment rate is nearly twice the national average. We require Canadians who are collecting EI benefits to prove they are looking for work. It’s only fair that we require employers looking to benefit from the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to prove they really need it.

Finally, the government should tighten the Labour Market Opinion approval process to ensure that only businesses with legitimate needs are able to access the program.

Justin Trudeau: How to fix the broken temporary foreign worker program

The Liberal leader says the program must be scaled back and refocused on its original purpose: to fill jobs on a limited basis when no Canadian workers can be found.

www.thestar.com

 

[Northern Light]

^ Great. They are going to allow young people to take on more debt so they can bid up housing. They really shouldn't be surprised when they lose in 2025, if they think this is acceptable housing policy.

Trudeau government to loosen RRSP, mortgage rules as housing shortfall swells

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland unveiled a suite of changes on Thursday designed to help people afford mortgages and buy their first homes, the latest in the Liberal government's ongoing housing

www.thestar.com

The changes:

On existing mortgages (not new ones) those struggling to make payments may reamortize at 35 years.

On new mortgages, to your point above, people will be able to amortize at 30 years.

The amount you can 'borrow' from your own RRSP will be increased from 35k to 60k.

Here's a comment from the story also paralleling your line of thought:

 

[SevenPlus]

I just don't see how these policies are of any use in Toronto and Vancouver. As if these minor changes can make or break it lol.

 

[kEiThZ]

I just don't see how these policies are of any use in Toronto and Vancouver. As if these minor changes can make or break it lol.

The LPC is helping young people "win" bidding wars against future condo speculators, so that developers and existing speculators win massive gains.

 

[kEiThZ]

Rolling back OAS to 65 is basically taking up all fiscal room in the budget and accounts for 84% of the deficit. And it's growing faster as a liability than any other priority be it child benefits, defence spending, infrastructure spending, etc. Basically everything we do now is to fund OAS.

The Globe & Mail: Protect OAS by eliminating outdated tax shelters for retirees

The sustainability of OAS is under threat as our population ages. Ottawa should review outdated tax shelters for retirees that drain billions in revenue and could otherwise help cover rising OAS costs.

www.gensqueeze.ca

After reading this, I'm probably going to vote for any party that promises to roll back OAS. This is absolutely insane war on the young.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Rolling back OAS to 65 is basically taking up all fiscal room in the budget and accounts for 84% of the deficit. And it's growing faster as a liability than any other priority be it child benefits, defence spending, infrastructure spending, etc. Basically everything we do now is to fund OAS.

The Globe & Mail: Protect OAS by eliminating outdated tax shelters for retirees

The sustainability of OAS is under threat as our population ages. Ottawa should review outdated tax shelters for retirees that drain billions in revenue and could otherwise help cover rising OAS costs.

www.gensqueeze.ca

After reading this, I'm probably going to vote for any party that promises to roll back OAS. This is absolutely insane war on the young.

Or tax transfers of generational wealth to fund the OAS. As to rolling back OAS - I have no issue with doing it in principle, but I think the key here is doing it gradually - in monthly increments by age.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

Rolling back OAS to 65 is basically taking up all fiscal room in the budget and accounts for 84% of the deficit. And it's growing faster as a liability than any other priority be it child benefits, defence spending, infrastructure spending, etc. Basically everything we do now is to fund OAS.

The Globe & Mail: Protect OAS by eliminating outdated tax shelters for retirees

The sustainability of OAS is under threat as our population ages. Ottawa should review outdated tax shelters for retirees that drain billions in revenue and could otherwise help cover rising OAS costs.

www.gensqueeze.ca

After reading this, I'm probably going to vote for any party that promises to roll back OAS. This is absolutely insane war on the young.

I had the Parliamentary Library do some research awhile back through my MP.

IF we bumped the retirement age and reinvested same in higher CPP and OAS benefits (using only the savings derived from ages at which there would not be further payout)....

Bump to Age 67: Benefit increase 25%
Bump to Age 70: Benefit increase 40%

Lets start there, we'll come back to how to sustain this.

Right now, the enhanced CPP (previously approved and being phased in) provides for 33% income replacement up to the cap at which the contribution cap applies.

OAS provides ~14% income replacement for a total of 47%. Clearly not enough for most people to retire on; which is where GIS currently factors in; but is generally still inadequate for many.

The 40% bump noted above would:

Shift CPP to 46% income replacement.
Shift OAS to 19.6% income replacement.

For a total of 65.5%.

In the absence of changes to the GIS eligibility limits as well, this would create a significant savings in lower GIS uptake due to higher income.

I would bump the GIS number as well, but I do consider the need for offsets.

Offsets:

1) Bumping the retirement age to 70 creates additional income tax from people still working, and additional sales tax from higher ongoing spending.

2) I would curtail or remove the Age Credit and Pension Income Credit as noted at the Generation Squeeze link above for a savings of 6.4B annually.

Additional considerations.

A) Further increase the income contribution limits and the total payout for CPP. This would better protect middle and upper middle income earners, but would also make it more politically palatable to curtail the maximum RRSP contributions which generally benefit only upper middle and high income Canadians.

B) Eliminate the TFSA tax shelter entirely.

* PS, I have both of the above.

 

[afransen]

The black swan risk in these retirement benefits programs is if medical advances start paying dividends in longer lifespan. This is an area of very active research and investment--direct treatments for aging/senescence rather than the end point diseases. It may take some time to see that change in the mortality data, and by then the politics of curtailing retirement benefits will be very difficult.

 

[evandyk]

The OAS clawback should be more aggressive. You can make around $150k before it’s fully clawed back. Paid to you by people making a lot less than 150k (which puts you in the top 5-10% of tax filers).

 

[afransen]

The OAS clawback should be more aggressive. You can make around $150k before it’s fully clawed back. Paid to you by people making a lot less than 150k (which puts you in the top 5-10% of tax filers).

Yes, I feel like OAS should be structured more like universal basic income, where it is clawed back from $1 of other income, but at a lower effective marginal rate. The OAS clawback makes marginal effective taxation pretty onerous for those higher income earners.

 

[kEiThZ]

B) Eliminate the TFSA tax shelter entirely.

This screws young people who have this as their primary savings vehicle. All to fund more payments to asset-millionaire retirees? It's actually nuts that OAS clawback doesn't start till ~80k while we have families with kids going to the Food Bank.

After reading about this issue, I am right steamed. We are figuratively (and maybe soon literally) burning the furniture to keep the gerontocracy living in luxury.

Generation Squeeze had asked the government to institute a requirement to apply a generational fairness lens to their policies. Funny how the government has no issues forcing GBA+ everywhere, but won't touch generational fairness at all. I wonder why.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes, I feel like OAS should be structured more like universal basic income, where it is clawed back from $1 of other income, but at a lower effective marginal rate. The OAS clawback makes marginal effective taxation pretty onerous for those higher income earners.

That you can collect OAS with a six figure income is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Northern Light]

Yes, I feel like OAS should be structured more like universal basic income, where it is clawed back from $1 of other income, but at a lower effective marginal rate. The OAS clawback makes marginal effective taxation pretty onerous for those higher income earners.

That, it essence, is what GIS is today.

I don't know that it makes sense to modify OAS into a second GIS.

Lets remember what OAS really is; its a part of the basic pension stipend, but its a fixed based amount (until the clawback kicks in) as opposed to being tied to your income/contribution like CPP. )

Canada's CPP is a relatively meager pension plan if left to stand on its own.

Even with the reinvesting savings from raising the retirement age that I note above you only get a combined income replacement of 65.5% (on average)

I think if you wanted to do away w/OAS you would need to further enrich CPP which means larger payroll tax deductions.

We could certainly argue for starting the clawback sooner; though I'm uncertain on how far one might go w/this. My concern is, that if you remove too many people from benefiting, they stop caring, and indeed may advocate for further cuts.

Buy-in is important.

****

Side note, the National Child Benefit is more generous in term of its clawback/phase-out, offering at least some money to families exceeding $200,000 in annual income.

That seems more problematic than OAS, in light of child poverty.

Perhaps we could curtail the NCB to a $160,000 income, like OAS; the reinvest the savings in households whose incomes are below $60,000?

 

[kEiThZ]

Right now, the enhanced CPP (previously approving an being phased in) provides for 33% income replacement up to the cap at which the contribution cap applies.

OAS provides ~14% income replacement for a total of 47%. Clearly not enough for most people to retire on; which is where GIS currently factors in; but is generally still inadequate for many.

The 40% bump noted above would:

Shift CPP to 46% income replacement.
Shift OAS to 19.6% income replacement.

For a total of 65.5%.

I am curious why we need to provide 65.5% of income in retirement. There should be no obligation on taxpayer to provide more than sustenance. And $80k/yr ain't sustenance. What have these people been doing all their lives with the money that was rolling in? Why isn't there an expectation that they cash out their large homes and use some of the absolutely spectacular capital gains (paid for by young people) to fund their retirement?

The OAS clawback should be more aggressive. You can make around $150k before it’s fully clawed back. Paid to you by people making a lot less than 150k (which puts you in the top 5-10% of tax filers).

100%.

I don't think OAS is necessary at more than 2x the poverty line. This basically amounts to robbery of younger generations.

If I had been more aware of this policy in 2019, I definitely wouldn't have voted red. They created a structural deficit to buy votes and literally screwed the country over for every other priority. All to benefit the richest cohort in the country. And they claim to be progressive. Unbelievable.