Don’t mess with our OAS, readers demand
Re Delaying old age security a needless pain for
poor, Feb. 1 As a lifelong supporter of the Conservatives and an individual who anticipates being adversely impacted by such changes, I regret I must add my voice of displeasure to the growing masses. Frankly, it is just wrong to change the goal line for those of us at the 75-yard marker.
Having paid into the system for the better part of 30 years, I am entitled. At this late stage it would be mathematically impossible for many of us to fill the gap with our time left in the workforce.
I understand the need for financial austerity and so I propose that we all share the pain. So let’s start with the MPS. Our MPS’ retirement “entitlement” is $40,000 per year at age 55 for a mere six years of service; this jumps to $75,000 at 15 years of service and $150,000 a year for a cabinet minister. That’s $23 in taxpayer contributions for every $1 of MP contribution.
MPS should be mandated to contribute 4 per cent of their salary into a defined contribution plan and be entitled to a 4 per cent government match — the same program that much of the private sector enjoys. Average Canadians will cut the politicians some slack if they demonstrate that they are willing to bite the bullet along with the rest of us.
If the proposed changes are in fact imposed on Canadians, the government needs to dramatically raise or eliminate the RRSP caps so that we can save freely for our old age. Clearly we cannot rely on government to live up to its commitments. Jeff Mcdermott, Alliston The Conservative idea of delaying the eligibility of OAS benefits is anti-women, unjust from a class perspective, wrong-headed economics and anti- immigrant in nature. I urge the government to leave the OAS as it is and cover the increased expense from other sources.
Paul Sullivan, Toronto Surely the PM has lost sight of what proper government is all about. Even contemplating fooling with the OAS program is totally foolhardy. To even consider penalizing baby boomers who are now coming up for retirement after working and paying into the system for many years is unconscionable.
I’m sure at the next election these older citizens will show Stephen Harper the door. We can only hope.
Bill Langham, Bethany I am wondering how Stephen Harper believes that forcing seniors to work longer will save money. Won’t the cost of unemployed younger workers forced on to welfare offset any savings from denying seniors their well earned retirement benefits?
Elaine French, Whitby Stephen Harper chooses his words carefully, “There will be no cuts to the OAS.” But extending the age to receive it amounts to exactly the same thing. Companies routinely fire and won’t hire anyone in their 50s; how can someone who’s 65 get a decent job to last them until they hit 67 or 69? David Scott Barclay, Georgetown Ralph Goodale is correct that in 2030 the OAS will cost only 2 per cent of GDP more than today because the Canadian economy will have grown by 60 per cent. So why is Stephen Harper wasting oxygen on this?
Why are his zealots taking to the airwaves in defence of this dubious plan? The sad part is he was given this majority by people who wanted to “stick it” to others but got it stuck to themselves instead. Bryan Charlebois, Toronto I’m thoroughly disheartened. There’s always money for mega-prisons and new jets, and we dare not touch the MPS’ platinum pensions. But we need to cut OAS?
And there are still some who don’t believe Stephen Harper is out to destroy the fabric of Canadian society. The Conservatives have a majority in the House, but they don’t have the hearts, minds or votes of the majority of Canadians. I’m all for fiscal responsibility — this isn’t it. Jean Gibbens, Guelph The Prime Minister has taken his disrespect and disregard for Parliament and the Canadian people to new levels by announcing government policy initiatives to the international community rather than to Parliament. If he wanted major pension reform, why did he not announce it during the recent election? Canadians must get rid of this dictator and his party of neocons. Bill Longworth, Oshawa I am extremely upset with this proposal. I am 27 months away from age 65, and can be classified as one of those suffering from the new economy. In 27 months I will require these funds to exist, even then giving me a belowpoverty income.
I have worked my whole life contributing taxes, and feel I am entitled at age 65 to receive these funds. Neil Mcgaghey, Cambridge Thomas Walkom wrote that Stephen Harper “has little patience for social programs.” Harper indeed has little patience for social programs that benefit people, especially the vulnerable (e.g., the poor, the elderly), but clearly works very hard to implement social programs that benefit corporate profits. Buying fighter jets, building prisons and corporate tax cuts are all social programs that channel public money into corporate profits. Dr. Raj Singh, Ottawa The Harper government has once again placed an unfair burden on poor and lower-income people. Don Haines, Markdale Since the OAS is already clawed back on the basis of high income, it is clear that Stephen Harper wants to fund his corporate tax cuts on the backs of seniors who can least afford it. The lowering of corporate tax rates by 7 percentage points between 2007 and 2012 alone will cost the public treasury $13.7 billion annually. Is it fair to ask our poorest pensioners to make it up? Larry Kazdan, Vancouver
“Stephen Harper wants to fund his corporate tax cuts on the backs of seniors who can least afford it.” LARRY KAZDAN VANCOUVER “Surely the PM has lost sight of what proper government is all about.” BILL LANGHAM BETHANY