goreckm
Active Member
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?
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.
Unfortunately this will have the effect of pulling the rug out from the current younger generations. Unlike the boomers, millenials are less likely to own a house. If they buy a house, it's later in life and will have to spend more of their working years paying interest instead of saving. The future is yet to be seen, but I don't forsee similar housing gains for new buyers like for old. They are much less likely to have a pension program, so won't have anything to fall back on when they are no longer able to work. I know families with an income of 200k which are pretty frugal but still living paycheck to paycheck due to the cost of housing/food, they certainly are not saving much for retirement. We should be striving for dignity during retirement. The elimination of these programs will further increase the social upheaval we're seeing now, and that's never a good thing.