Jen I know you want to save the CBC in some form. I’d argue that the rot is too deep. I think you’d agree that the anti semitism, the virulent activism, the political tribalism is too strong and the fight to turn it back to a fact based non ideological institution of journalistic integrity is not likely to happen. How about just shut it down and start a new outfit, hire the best journalists, researchers and managers with integrity? Cut the budget into a third. Get rid of shows and music and gem and just do news but high quality research based fact based news. Could that work?
The issue is the "best journalists" still come from the same education and social background as journalists they have now. In the world of sports, the best journalists and data scientists are people who started on their own, building their own popular base. Once they get popular enough, the media or clubs hire them. Journalistic media seem to be backward now: the independent journalists are those who gained notoriety when working in mainstream media then go independent and rely on the popular base they got in their mainstream media time. Maybe mainstream media in the future can adopt the sport model and find up and coming independent journalists that already doing journalism on their own.
There was a brief window where “direct entry” was possible. Chris Selley and I were both bloggers who came into the MSM as columnists because we got noticed for the blogs. Chris was a solo blogger on his own platform. I went into it via the Post’s “Full Comment” blog. Neither of us were j-school.
.... and now you do not belong to MSM, because you left it and are a wholly and completely independent journalist. Of the classical style, not of the current post-factual relativist propagandist journo type. Keep in mind that if and when you mention yourself to be part of current MSM, you are voluntarily taking a bath in a stinking cesspool.
...and yet, both Matt and Jen are still actively contributing to the MSM with thoughtful analysis in TVO, G&M, The Star, and others. They still belong to the MSM. There are others. Robyn & Vassy. Chris and Terry. I could go on.
If the goal is to fill up news deserts, let independent journalists pick up the mantle with incentives, tax breaks, 0% loans, etc.
If you lower the cost of operating in a market, someone will figure out a way to do it. With new technologies, and publishing platforms like substack, the barrier to entry is as low as it will ever be.
Give that local blogger or kid out of j-school a shot.
No it would not work. The infestation would be circling around waiting for a way in to infest again. The place needs to be left fallow for a substantial amount of years.
This is my theory about why leaders now afraid of calling out BS theories. There are 2 phenomenon that incentivize this:
1. Democratization of party funding and nomination process. It means that the politician is not just beholden to the whim of few elites, but to every single person they meet. They get afraid of upsetting someone and lose their vote/money, however wacky that person is. 2. The development of "there is no universal right and wrong" as the default mindset of post-religion society. This means that everyone is entitled to their own truth and people been conditioned to affirm them or else they'll be labeled as a bigot. This means that people are not used to the art of respectful disagreement nor being disagreed with. People now can just avoid places that disagree with them and find their own echo chambers that affirm their belief.
I'm sorry, but the current max OAS payment for someone between 65 and 75 is $727.67/month. For over 75, it's just a bit over $800. It's not worth getting worked up about. This gov blows billions a year on all sorts of shit, including a stupid gun buy-back program. Why not give OAS recipients a COLA raise? Where I take issue with OAS is that it really should be clawed back from high income seniors much sooner than it is. And my bigger issue is that people qualify for OAS after just living in Canada for 10 years. So when we allow immigrants to bring their older/senior family members into Canada, those people qualify for OAS in 10 years, even if they haven't worked a day in Canada. We could easily fund a 10 percent raise by clawing back from the wealthier and increasing the number of qualifying years to 20. Whether we'll have a government who will do that or not remains to be seen.
You are absolutely correct! The bigger issue is how the how the Trudeau Liberals have completely wasted our tax dollars, including the incomprehensible extension of social services (OAS, Health Care…) to family reunification immigrants.
Your employment history is not a factor in determining eligibility. You can receive the Old Age Security (OAS) pension even if you have never worked or are still working.
If you are living in Canada, you must:
be 65 years old or older
be a Canadian citizen or a legal resident at the time we approve your OAS pension application
have resided in Canada for at least 10 years since the age of 18
If you are living outside Canada, you must:
be 65 years old or older
have been a Canadian citizen or a legal resident of Canada on the day before you left Canada
have resided in Canada for at least 20 years since the age of 18
1. The Conservatives can always wait until after they get elected to claw back whatever OAS the better-off elderly still get, and they should do this. (I say this as a boomer myself.) This is politically wiser than doing it during an undeclared election campaign, especially over a non-binding resolution that was really an attempt to produce a non-confidence motion.
2. Do you think there is any chance (risk!) that this rotting government will be able to pass the On-Line Harms Bill? Or is there room for optimism that it will die on the order paper when the government eventually falls?
3. This week's *The Economist* has a leader article that the Leviathan state everywhere (not just here) seems to be getting progressively less competent to deliver traditional state functions yet consumes progressively more of the GDP. I think you touched on two aspects of this in your remarks on OAS and the idea of reforming the CBC. State failure leads to failure of everything the state tries to do. Since Canadians like to be looked after by the state, this could lead to some very disappointed Canadians.
I'm not a senior yet, but getting there :-D. I totally agreed with Harper's changing the qualifying year to 67, knowing full well that it would have directly affected me. What was good about it was that it was to have been phased in, so I would have have at least a decade and a half to plan accordingly.
Right now the largest generational support for the Liberals is the senior generation. By leaving the Liberals as the only party not supporting the increase in the OAS they are setting up to attack the Liberals in one of their few strong areas.
Re: CBC. Though I never seek CBC out any more, the network occasionally shows up on YouTube's border list of other viewing choices when I'm looking at something on a better site. Whenever I make the mistake of clicking on the proferred CBC choice I'm always disappointed: the network seems to be self-consciously and desperately clinging on to another era, a perception reinforced by the fact that Comments are invariable 'turned off.' Evidently, CBC execs don't want to hear from viewers... or maybe they just don't want to hear from the 2020s (or, possibly, from the 21st century altogether).
What I can't figure out is who CBC's brains-trust are fighting this curious rearguard action for. It definitely isn't me, which is odd since I'm a news consumer, am interested in Canadian issues, and watched CBC religiously for decades. On top of that I've always voted NDP, which probably stamps me in some minds as a natural CBC defender and ally; and maybe CBC execs think this too. Yet, the criteria guiding my voting choices were never ideological (like most moderate Canadians of my generation I distrust ideology and the cult-like 'reasoning' it encourages), and am repelled by CBC's ideological posturing.
Presumably, CBC desires to appeal to an audience, has some conception of who the ideal CBC viewer is, and is trying to target individuals fitting that profile with its programming. I confess to complete puzzlement about what this profile looks like, and who qualifies to belong to it.
I suspect that the main reason comments are often turned off on CBC is that they aren't willing to pay for moderators to weed out the trolls & flamers.
Since anyone who quibbles with The Narrative could only be doing so if he/she were a troll or flamer, I guess such weeding would indeed appear a daunting task from CBC's point of view. I suspect the real problem isn't trolls and flamers, though, but the point of view.
The Liberals CBC announcement actually provides an opportunity for the Conservatives to soften their 'axe the CBC' pledge, if the government falls sooner rather than later.
The GOC under the Conservatives could contract Jen to reconstitute the CBC.
The OAS issue is just a reminder that in many ways Canada politically is still run by well to do boomers. This handout is for a job well done. It's also a reminder that Canada can't afford the cradle to grave economy it so desperately seeks. We just don't do or make enough here to be able to afford it. I don't blame the Liberals on that either, rather I blame the culture of Canada.
The boomers are still the largest voting demographic. There are more millenials now because of immigration and boomers passing away, but they don't vote like boomers always have.
Heavens above Jen, first you go off last week on taxpayer money for private investment firms and now its a full-on screed about intergenerational equity in light of collapsing prospects for Canada's youth? What next, comrade, renationalizing the railways?
Semi-sarcasm aside, the podcast was a delight, and the examination/excoriation of the save-the-CBC as political Hail Mary as well as the righteous vivisection of the CPC's support for the ludicrous OAS motion were just *chef's kiss*. We may be witnessing the slow and execrable collapse and splintering of our nation, but at least the commentary is razor sharp!
I take it you are jesting when you call Jen a comrade, she is far from that. Jen is however socially conscious, something everyone ought to be; being socially conscious has nothing to do with socialism, rather the opposite. A socially conscious society is generally more fair and better habitable for all.
I agree with the notion that see-pee-see, formerly known as CBC, needs to be padlocked for 5 years before anyone bothers to think about it again.
There is a lot of writing about people using institutions for themselves and their own aggrandizement rather than building the institutions. Justin Trudeau is doing that to the Ljberal Party in a way where we may never see it come back again.
Canada has finally - mostly but not completely - realized what the Liberal Party, actually the Liebranodip Laurential Corruptocrat Party, has been all along. And Troodas The Judas came along just at the right time to hopefully sink both himself and the Liebranodip Laurential Corruptocrat Party, forever.
I take it you missed the part where our esteemed editors discussed their dismay at the possibility of governing by owning the libs.
I may think that Trudeau is not doing a good job as Prime Minister, but I wish he would more than I wish him ill. Because he’s the Prime Minister of OUR country.
If asked to help, I would help, because making the country better is more important than electoral success or triumphing over the other “side”.
As mentioned in the podcast, the Conservatives seem to think they can’t make a case that would accepted by the Boomers for voting against the OAS increase. As Jen laid out, I think there’s an incredibly reasonable case to be made (I’m 67). I see this as yet another example of a glaring lack of leadership (this time, the Conservatives) and of the ‘I’m gonna get me mine’ attitude that now seems pervasive in all sectors of the Canadian public. I heard a rep from CARP (Canadian Association of Retired People) on the CBC recently advocating for the increase, as it’s ‘needed by some low income seniors’ (or something to that effect). True … but the increase as proposed would go to many who are far from low income. Can’t someone put forth a more reasonable counter-proposal like clawing back more OAS at lower incomes or increasing the GIS ?
And that the Liberals are touting fiscal discipline (at least on this issue) is also mind boggling … although vey welcome.
I suspect the next majority government of whichever persuasion will, early in its mandate, claw back the OAS starting at a lower threshold, say $40,000 taxable income, phased in in stages. We do need to target this generosity better: at those who never saved a dime during their working lives and who always planned to live off the state when they retired. They will be poor enough to qualify for OAS, and GIS, too.. There is another dodge, though. From savings in TFSAs or non-registered investment funds, withdrawals aren’t taxed as income (because they aren’t.). A retiree could be living on his savings quite comfortably but not earn enough income to see OAS clawed back. Only RRIFs and defined-benefit pension plans (e.g., hospital workers —not doctors— , teachers, and civil servants) pay out withdrawals as income because no tax was paid on the contributions. Treating this fairly will require some study.
On the gains yes but not on withdrawal of capital. The gains are taxable income (unless it's a TFSA) but withdrawals are not. Thanks. I should have made the distinction clear.
If this comment was directed to me: my point is deposits to a TFSA are made from "after tax earnings". The income earned is tax-free becasue that's the way the program is defined. The capital withdrawl is not because an individual paid tax on it before it ever goes into a TFSA account.
Even if you were taxed on savings, (which there are rumours the government wants to do -- that's what a wealth tax is) the argument is that the government can't take it all. If you saved $1000 and the government took $200 (in addition to income tax on the money when you earned it and again on the gains it made), you still have $800 you wouldn't have if you hadn't saved anything.
You are taxed on withdrawals from an RRSP, RRIF, CPP, or a registered pension plan. The reason is because you weren't taxed on the income that you invested in them back when you were working. My point with OAS is that someone who amassed a large portfolio of assets that no longer generate income gains -- say cash stuffed in a mattress -- who now was living comfortably on the money that he withdrew from the mattress every month would still collect the full OAS. It wouldn't be clawed back because he has very little income to report. He might be as well off as the guy who invested in an RRSP or who had a pension who *would* get his OAS clawed back because the RRSP payouts and pension cheques are reported as taxable income.
Some high-income self-employed people (who can't be in a pension plan) face this. They earn far more each year than the maximum they can put in their RRSPs so most of their investing has to be in non-registered vehicles. When they retire, they live mostly on the capital they withdraw from the non-registered accounts. It's to their advantage (OAS-wise) to move money from their RRSPs into those non-registered accounts. They have to pay tax on the RRSP withdrawal but shrinking the RRSP will reduce their taxable income, and therefore their OAS clawback, when they retire and start drawing OAS and cashing their RRSPs.
Doing this is specifically aimed at evading the clawback on OAS and maximizing retirement income. If the clawback was started at much lower thresholds it would reduce the opportunity for this scheme. to work. Where it is now at ~$90,000 it offers many well-off seniors a chance to beat the clawback by reducing the amount of retirement money that shows as income.
Policy around OAS is complicated and, as I said earlier, would need careful study to be fair to people in different circumstances. But well-off seniors shouldn't be getting it. I think we all agree on that.
There's a lot of judgement in your comment. Many of 'those who never saved a dime during their working lives' weren't making enough money to save anything and have no benefits or pension plan. For the 1st 20 years of my working life I lived paycheque to paycheque because my income was barely over the poverty line. Was in my mid-40's before I began earning enough to contribute to RSP's & also have employer RSP contributions.
I've done the math on TFSA's - someone who contributed the max every year & had an excellent return would maybe have about $200K today. Many people these days live well into their '80's so that 200K spread out over 20 years would mean they could/should only pull about $15K a year - not my definition of living comfortably on savings.
IMO this whole issue has more to do with courting our Boomer votes, than helping low-income seniors. If they really want to help low-income seniors then yes both the amount of GIS & the threshold for receiving it. Even though I don't have huge retirement savings I'm opposed to the OAS increase - which would benefit me now. I'm still able to work part-time so give the money to people who need it more than I do.
Wholeheartedly agree with that. It would be very interesting to see the reaction if the Conversatives did vote against the proposal. Are we Boomers so self absorbed that we can’t see this would be for the overall good of the country ? I know that attitude is in short supply these days.
Liberals just want to blow the money on their own pet projects. Increasing the GIS is a good idea, but see my other comments about how to offset the cost of implementing an OAS raise :-)
Faith in the CBC is like faith in a religion. It is convenient to take everything at face value because you are busy with a lot of other stuff. Like breaking faith with a religion, it starts where you see a lot of contradiction between the message and reality. It is now becoming self evident that a lot of Canadians, bordering on a majority, are not believers. It they were believers, Polievre wouldn't have a chance.
My own reasons for scepticism have to do with the almost gullible acceptance the CBC treats anything from the eco activist community as gospel and ignores information which disagrees with them. Having worked in oil & gas development, the CBC narrative diverges from reality. Everybody has their own reasons however.
Having a new mandate isn't going to fix this but it may stop CBC news and political commentary from fading into the sunset. If they do it right, which I would not bet on.
All those big problems that Jen stated the Conservatives will need to clean up during her OAS critique, they all have one thing in common. The Bloc just accentuated this, but the big cultural issue in Canada that is kneecapping us is that we have a bipolar country. The English and French live on different planets.
How can you move forward.if you value such different things. It's like a bad marriage where the couple has grown apart and have different goals. You have one spouse blackmailing the other to get what they want, threatening to leave them if they don't get the goodies. Assuming the other will never leave because "who would want you anyways?"
Canada is a toxic marriage, either we have devolution and each solves the big things the way that works for them, or Canada will have separation. It won't be the French who choose to leave either, one day the English will be tired of being taken for granted and abused.
There are plenty of other countries, including much of Europe, that have separated for less.
It won't come from the bottom up either. Separatist movements are never from the ground up, they are always from the top down. One day English Canada's elite will resent being the cuckolds of Confederation. (and mocked behind their backs at every world leader gathering)
It wasn't always a failed experiment though. In 2010 we were better off in both quality of life and standard of living compared to the US. Now we are behind the OECD average.
Good nuanced discussion of our infomation landscape at the end. Too little discussion of left conspiracy theories, but overall it's good to wonder why people are going down rabbit holes. Too bad most journalists can't ask this question, and instead smear and jeer.
Ah, to be able to be anonymous ..... but, honesty ....
Jen, I think that you are trying too hard. The JG that we have known for some time is a very attractive woman; I suggest that you don't try to hide her.
Lot to unpack but the criticism about the conservatives not governing or still playing politics is because this is all that this is about. And the conservatives are positioning themselves as the only choice regardless of your political spectrum. Cdns have given up on getting things done and its now in the "burn it all down mode".
The line about "This is how the Liberals lose.." have never been more true. Trudeau has had many opportunity to tone down the rhetoric and start to right his legacy. His disgusting trip to the Colbert Show where Colbert's line that "PP was the DJT for the north" would have been a perfect time to deescalate. "No, Mr. Colbert, PP and I, disagree. We have a vision of Canada that is inclusive, blah blah blah, " Next day get all the leaders together and work out a framework to get the temperature down. But JT could not resist himself, laughs and move on.
The 2019 election was the Mitt Rommey "Women in binders" moment in Cdn Politics. Erin O'Toole was doing everything he could to run a clean election. The liberals wanting to cling to power used every disgusting trick they could to cling to power. I still see that twitter handle "Eric O'Toole" still around sling as much mud as he could. Erin was PRO carbon tax. The conservatives learn (and rightly so), is best to attack, play politics and worry about governing WHEN you become the government.
Finally, CBC. Its done. Kill it, Burn it to the ground. It can't be fixed. Catherine Tait and her croonies have made sure of that. I think Blacklocks reported that Public Safety Canada had more women employees than the CBC. If CBC claims they are progressive and corrections Canada has hired more women, its enough. Local journalism, all that lovey dovey stuff, its done. Faster we get rid of CBC better we all will be.
Jen I know you want to save the CBC in some form. I’d argue that the rot is too deep. I think you’d agree that the anti semitism, the virulent activism, the political tribalism is too strong and the fight to turn it back to a fact based non ideological institution of journalistic integrity is not likely to happen. How about just shut it down and start a new outfit, hire the best journalists, researchers and managers with integrity? Cut the budget into a third. Get rid of shows and music and gem and just do news but high quality research based fact based news. Could that work?
The issue is the "best journalists" still come from the same education and social background as journalists they have now. In the world of sports, the best journalists and data scientists are people who started on their own, building their own popular base. Once they get popular enough, the media or clubs hire them. Journalistic media seem to be backward now: the independent journalists are those who gained notoriety when working in mainstream media then go independent and rely on the popular base they got in their mainstream media time. Maybe mainstream media in the future can adopt the sport model and find up and coming independent journalists that already doing journalism on their own.
There was a brief window where “direct entry” was possible. Chris Selley and I were both bloggers who came into the MSM as columnists because we got noticed for the blogs. Chris was a solo blogger on his own platform. I went into it via the Post’s “Full Comment” blog. Neither of us were j-school.
It shows. And I appreciate it.
.... and now you do not belong to MSM, because you left it and are a wholly and completely independent journalist. Of the classical style, not of the current post-factual relativist propagandist journo type. Keep in mind that if and when you mention yourself to be part of current MSM, you are voluntarily taking a bath in a stinking cesspool.
...and yet, both Matt and Jen are still actively contributing to the MSM with thoughtful analysis in TVO, G&M, The Star, and others. They still belong to the MSM. There are others. Robyn & Vassy. Chris and Terry. I could go on.
Not all is lost, yet. It's close, though.
This is correct. Not fully independent.
If the goal is to fill up news deserts, let independent journalists pick up the mantle with incentives, tax breaks, 0% loans, etc.
If you lower the cost of operating in a market, someone will figure out a way to do it. With new technologies, and publishing platforms like substack, the barrier to entry is as low as it will ever be.
Give that local blogger or kid out of j-school a shot.
No it would not work. The infestation would be circling around waiting for a way in to infest again. The place needs to be left fallow for a substantial amount of years.
This is my theory about why leaders now afraid of calling out BS theories. There are 2 phenomenon that incentivize this:
1. Democratization of party funding and nomination process. It means that the politician is not just beholden to the whim of few elites, but to every single person they meet. They get afraid of upsetting someone and lose their vote/money, however wacky that person is. 2. The development of "there is no universal right and wrong" as the default mindset of post-religion society. This means that everyone is entitled to their own truth and people been conditioned to affirm them or else they'll be labeled as a bigot. This means that people are not used to the art of respectful disagreement nor being disagreed with. People now can just avoid places that disagree with them and find their own echo chambers that affirm their belief.
I'm sorry, but the current max OAS payment for someone between 65 and 75 is $727.67/month. For over 75, it's just a bit over $800. It's not worth getting worked up about. This gov blows billions a year on all sorts of shit, including a stupid gun buy-back program. Why not give OAS recipients a COLA raise? Where I take issue with OAS is that it really should be clawed back from high income seniors much sooner than it is. And my bigger issue is that people qualify for OAS after just living in Canada for 10 years. So when we allow immigrants to bring their older/senior family members into Canada, those people qualify for OAS in 10 years, even if they haven't worked a day in Canada. We could easily fund a 10 percent raise by clawing back from the wealthier and increasing the number of qualifying years to 20. Whether we'll have a government who will do that or not remains to be seen.
You are absolutely correct! The bigger issue is how the how the Trudeau Liberals have completely wasted our tax dollars, including the incomprehensible extension of social services (OAS, Health Care…) to family reunification immigrants.
I know there is. The clawback point is rather high, though.
Goodness, it's easy to qualify (from Canada.ca):
Your employment history is not a factor in determining eligibility. You can receive the Old Age Security (OAS) pension even if you have never worked or are still working.
If you are living in Canada, you must:
be 65 years old or older
be a Canadian citizen or a legal resident at the time we approve your OAS pension application
have resided in Canada for at least 10 years since the age of 18
If you are living outside Canada, you must:
be 65 years old or older
have been a Canadian citizen or a legal resident of Canada on the day before you left Canada
have resided in Canada for at least 20 years since the age of 18
There is a means test for OAS - if you make too much you don’t get anything. Ask me how I know?
And no I don’t mind - it’s what it should be.
1. The Conservatives can always wait until after they get elected to claw back whatever OAS the better-off elderly still get, and they should do this. (I say this as a boomer myself.) This is politically wiser than doing it during an undeclared election campaign, especially over a non-binding resolution that was really an attempt to produce a non-confidence motion.
2. Do you think there is any chance (risk!) that this rotting government will be able to pass the On-Line Harms Bill? Or is there room for optimism that it will die on the order paper when the government eventually falls?
3. This week's *The Economist* has a leader article that the Leviathan state everywhere (not just here) seems to be getting progressively less competent to deliver traditional state functions yet consumes progressively more of the GDP. I think you touched on two aspects of this in your remarks on OAS and the idea of reforming the CBC. State failure leads to failure of everything the state tries to do. Since Canadians like to be looked after by the state, this could lead to some very disappointed Canadians.
I'm not a senior yet, but getting there :-D. I totally agreed with Harper's changing the qualifying year to 67, knowing full well that it would have directly affected me. What was good about it was that it was to have been phased in, so I would have have at least a decade and a half to plan accordingly.
Right now the largest generational support for the Liberals is the senior generation. By leaving the Liberals as the only party not supporting the increase in the OAS they are setting up to attack the Liberals in one of their few strong areas.
Re: CBC. Though I never seek CBC out any more, the network occasionally shows up on YouTube's border list of other viewing choices when I'm looking at something on a better site. Whenever I make the mistake of clicking on the proferred CBC choice I'm always disappointed: the network seems to be self-consciously and desperately clinging on to another era, a perception reinforced by the fact that Comments are invariable 'turned off.' Evidently, CBC execs don't want to hear from viewers... or maybe they just don't want to hear from the 2020s (or, possibly, from the 21st century altogether).
What I can't figure out is who CBC's brains-trust are fighting this curious rearguard action for. It definitely isn't me, which is odd since I'm a news consumer, am interested in Canadian issues, and watched CBC religiously for decades. On top of that I've always voted NDP, which probably stamps me in some minds as a natural CBC defender and ally; and maybe CBC execs think this too. Yet, the criteria guiding my voting choices were never ideological (like most moderate Canadians of my generation I distrust ideology and the cult-like 'reasoning' it encourages), and am repelled by CBC's ideological posturing.
Presumably, CBC desires to appeal to an audience, has some conception of who the ideal CBC viewer is, and is trying to target individuals fitting that profile with its programming. I confess to complete puzzlement about what this profile looks like, and who qualifies to belong to it.
I suspect that the main reason comments are often turned off on CBC is that they aren't willing to pay for moderators to weed out the trolls & flamers.
Since anyone who quibbles with The Narrative could only be doing so if he/she were a troll or flamer, I guess such weeding would indeed appear a daunting task from CBC's point of view. I suspect the real problem isn't trolls and flamers, though, but the point of view.
I'm cynical, but not nearly as cynical as you seem to be :-)
The Liberals CBC announcement actually provides an opportunity for the Conservatives to soften their 'axe the CBC' pledge, if the government falls sooner rather than later.
The GOC under the Conservatives could contract Jen to reconstitute the CBC.
Jen, would you be up for that, if asked?
The OAS issue is just a reminder that in many ways Canada politically is still run by well to do boomers. This handout is for a job well done. It's also a reminder that Canada can't afford the cradle to grave economy it so desperately seeks. We just don't do or make enough here to be able to afford it. I don't blame the Liberals on that either, rather I blame the culture of Canada.
Nah, it's mostly Gen X running the show. They will be collecting OAS in six years.
The boomers are still the largest voting demographic. There are more millenials now because of immigration and boomers passing away, but they don't vote like boomers always have.
Wealthy boomers won’t be swayed by this this. Those less well off might.
Heavens above Jen, first you go off last week on taxpayer money for private investment firms and now its a full-on screed about intergenerational equity in light of collapsing prospects for Canada's youth? What next, comrade, renationalizing the railways?
Semi-sarcasm aside, the podcast was a delight, and the examination/excoriation of the save-the-CBC as political Hail Mary as well as the righteous vivisection of the CPC's support for the ludicrous OAS motion were just *chef's kiss*. We may be witnessing the slow and execrable collapse and splintering of our nation, but at least the commentary is razor sharp!
I take it you are jesting when you call Jen a comrade, she is far from that. Jen is however socially conscious, something everyone ought to be; being socially conscious has nothing to do with socialism, rather the opposite. A socially conscious society is generally more fair and better habitable for all.
I agree with the notion that see-pee-see, formerly known as CBC, needs to be padlocked for 5 years before anyone bothers to think about it again.
There is a lot of writing about people using institutions for themselves and their own aggrandizement rather than building the institutions. Justin Trudeau is doing that to the Ljberal Party in a way where we may never see it come back again.
Canada has finally - mostly but not completely - realized what the Liberal Party, actually the Liebranodip Laurential Corruptocrat Party, has been all along. And Troodas The Judas came along just at the right time to hopefully sink both himself and the Liebranodip Laurential Corruptocrat Party, forever.
I take it you missed the part where our esteemed editors discussed their dismay at the possibility of governing by owning the libs.
I may think that Trudeau is not doing a good job as Prime Minister, but I wish he would more than I wish him ill. Because he’s the Prime Minister of OUR country.
If asked to help, I would help, because making the country better is more important than electoral success or triumphing over the other “side”.
As mentioned in the podcast, the Conservatives seem to think they can’t make a case that would accepted by the Boomers for voting against the OAS increase. As Jen laid out, I think there’s an incredibly reasonable case to be made (I’m 67). I see this as yet another example of a glaring lack of leadership (this time, the Conservatives) and of the ‘I’m gonna get me mine’ attitude that now seems pervasive in all sectors of the Canadian public. I heard a rep from CARP (Canadian Association of Retired People) on the CBC recently advocating for the increase, as it’s ‘needed by some low income seniors’ (or something to that effect). True … but the increase as proposed would go to many who are far from low income. Can’t someone put forth a more reasonable counter-proposal like clawing back more OAS at lower incomes or increasing the GIS ?
And that the Liberals are touting fiscal discipline (at least on this issue) is also mind boggling … although vey welcome.
I suspect the next majority government of whichever persuasion will, early in its mandate, claw back the OAS starting at a lower threshold, say $40,000 taxable income, phased in in stages. We do need to target this generosity better: at those who never saved a dime during their working lives and who always planned to live off the state when they retired. They will be poor enough to qualify for OAS, and GIS, too.. There is another dodge, though. From savings in TFSAs or non-registered investment funds, withdrawals aren’t taxed as income (because they aren’t.). A retiree could be living on his savings quite comfortably but not earn enough income to see OAS clawed back. Only RRIFs and defined-benefit pension plans (e.g., hospital workers —not doctors— , teachers, and civil servants) pay out withdrawals as income because no tax was paid on the contributions. Treating this fairly will require some study.
You get taxed on the gains from non-registered investments.
On the gains yes but not on withdrawal of capital. The gains are taxable income (unless it's a TFSA) but withdrawals are not. Thanks. I should have made the distinction clear.
The money was taxed already, TFSA deposits do not reduce taxable income, only the gains.
If you were taxed on withdrawals, what would be the point of saving?
If this comment was directed to me: my point is deposits to a TFSA are made from "after tax earnings". The income earned is tax-free becasue that's the way the program is defined. The capital withdrawl is not because an individual paid tax on it before it ever goes into a TFSA account.
Even if you were taxed on savings, (which there are rumours the government wants to do -- that's what a wealth tax is) the argument is that the government can't take it all. If you saved $1000 and the government took $200 (in addition to income tax on the money when you earned it and again on the gains it made), you still have $800 you wouldn't have if you hadn't saved anything.
You are taxed on withdrawals from an RRSP, RRIF, CPP, or a registered pension plan. The reason is because you weren't taxed on the income that you invested in them back when you were working. My point with OAS is that someone who amassed a large portfolio of assets that no longer generate income gains -- say cash stuffed in a mattress -- who now was living comfortably on the money that he withdrew from the mattress every month would still collect the full OAS. It wouldn't be clawed back because he has very little income to report. He might be as well off as the guy who invested in an RRSP or who had a pension who *would* get his OAS clawed back because the RRSP payouts and pension cheques are reported as taxable income.
Some high-income self-employed people (who can't be in a pension plan) face this. They earn far more each year than the maximum they can put in their RRSPs so most of their investing has to be in non-registered vehicles. When they retire, they live mostly on the capital they withdraw from the non-registered accounts. It's to their advantage (OAS-wise) to move money from their RRSPs into those non-registered accounts. They have to pay tax on the RRSP withdrawal but shrinking the RRSP will reduce their taxable income, and therefore their OAS clawback, when they retire and start drawing OAS and cashing their RRSPs.
Doing this is specifically aimed at evading the clawback on OAS and maximizing retirement income. If the clawback was started at much lower thresholds it would reduce the opportunity for this scheme. to work. Where it is now at ~$90,000 it offers many well-off seniors a chance to beat the clawback by reducing the amount of retirement money that shows as income.
Policy around OAS is complicated and, as I said earlier, would need careful study to be fair to people in different circumstances. But well-off seniors shouldn't be getting it. I think we all agree on that.
There's a lot of judgement in your comment. Many of 'those who never saved a dime during their working lives' weren't making enough money to save anything and have no benefits or pension plan. For the 1st 20 years of my working life I lived paycheque to paycheque because my income was barely over the poverty line. Was in my mid-40's before I began earning enough to contribute to RSP's & also have employer RSP contributions.
I've done the math on TFSA's - someone who contributed the max every year & had an excellent return would maybe have about $200K today. Many people these days live well into their '80's so that 200K spread out over 20 years would mean they could/should only pull about $15K a year - not my definition of living comfortably on savings.
Your math is wrong. The future value of $5,000 per year deposit earning 4% a year for 35 years is $368,000.
TFSA's have only been around since 2009 - my calculation is from 2009 to 2024.
You are correct, I thought you were referring to a theoretical starting now.
Your investments don’t stop growing once you hit 65 ;-)
True, but the amount of growth is reduced as you withdraw from your investments. :-)
Over decades. The key is having a plan. I discovered this recently, and plan to review it every so often to make sure I am on track. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/retirement-income-calculator.html It's a very handy site.
IMO this whole issue has more to do with courting our Boomer votes, than helping low-income seniors. If they really want to help low-income seniors then yes both the amount of GIS & the threshold for receiving it. Even though I don't have huge retirement savings I'm opposed to the OAS increase - which would benefit me now. I'm still able to work part-time so give the money to people who need it more than I do.
Wholeheartedly agree with that. It would be very interesting to see the reaction if the Conversatives did vote against the proposal. Are we Boomers so self absorbed that we can’t see this would be for the overall good of the country ? I know that attitude is in short supply these days.
I don't see a lot of support for it among my boomer people on the west coast. It's possibly a huge thing among Quebec boomers.
Liberals just want to blow the money on their own pet projects. Increasing the GIS is a good idea, but see my other comments about how to offset the cost of implementing an OAS raise :-)
I think we're going to have to put the Overton window into Landscape mode and probably just bite the bullet and throw some casters on that sucker.
Faith in the CBC is like faith in a religion. It is convenient to take everything at face value because you are busy with a lot of other stuff. Like breaking faith with a religion, it starts where you see a lot of contradiction between the message and reality. It is now becoming self evident that a lot of Canadians, bordering on a majority, are not believers. It they were believers, Polievre wouldn't have a chance.
My own reasons for scepticism have to do with the almost gullible acceptance the CBC treats anything from the eco activist community as gospel and ignores information which disagrees with them. Having worked in oil & gas development, the CBC narrative diverges from reality. Everybody has their own reasons however.
Having a new mandate isn't going to fix this but it may stop CBC news and political commentary from fading into the sunset. If they do it right, which I would not bet on.
All those big problems that Jen stated the Conservatives will need to clean up during her OAS critique, they all have one thing in common. The Bloc just accentuated this, but the big cultural issue in Canada that is kneecapping us is that we have a bipolar country. The English and French live on different planets.
How can you move forward.if you value such different things. It's like a bad marriage where the couple has grown apart and have different goals. You have one spouse blackmailing the other to get what they want, threatening to leave them if they don't get the goodies. Assuming the other will never leave because "who would want you anyways?"
Canada is a toxic marriage, either we have devolution and each solves the big things the way that works for them, or Canada will have separation. It won't be the French who choose to leave either, one day the English will be tired of being taken for granted and abused.
There are plenty of other countries, including much of Europe, that have separated for less.
It won't come from the bottom up either. Separatist movements are never from the ground up, they are always from the top down. One day English Canada's elite will resent being the cuckolds of Confederation. (and mocked behind their backs at every world leader gathering)
Yes, I feel that Canada has been a failed experiment.
It wasn't always a failed experiment though. In 2010 we were better off in both quality of life and standard of living compared to the US. Now we are behind the OECD average.
The Trudeau years have been hard on us.
Good nuanced discussion of our infomation landscape at the end. Too little discussion of left conspiracy theories, but overall it's good to wonder why people are going down rabbit holes. Too bad most journalists can't ask this question, and instead smear and jeer.
Ah, to be able to be anonymous ..... but, honesty ....
Jen, I think that you are trying too hard. The JG that we have known for some time is a very attractive woman; I suggest that you don't try to hide her.
Oh, for anonymity.
Lot to unpack but the criticism about the conservatives not governing or still playing politics is because this is all that this is about. And the conservatives are positioning themselves as the only choice regardless of your political spectrum. Cdns have given up on getting things done and its now in the "burn it all down mode".
The line about "This is how the Liberals lose.." have never been more true. Trudeau has had many opportunity to tone down the rhetoric and start to right his legacy. His disgusting trip to the Colbert Show where Colbert's line that "PP was the DJT for the north" would have been a perfect time to deescalate. "No, Mr. Colbert, PP and I, disagree. We have a vision of Canada that is inclusive, blah blah blah, " Next day get all the leaders together and work out a framework to get the temperature down. But JT could not resist himself, laughs and move on.
The 2019 election was the Mitt Rommey "Women in binders" moment in Cdn Politics. Erin O'Toole was doing everything he could to run a clean election. The liberals wanting to cling to power used every disgusting trick they could to cling to power. I still see that twitter handle "Eric O'Toole" still around sling as much mud as he could. Erin was PRO carbon tax. The conservatives learn (and rightly so), is best to attack, play politics and worry about governing WHEN you become the government.
Finally, CBC. Its done. Kill it, Burn it to the ground. It can't be fixed. Catherine Tait and her croonies have made sure of that. I think Blacklocks reported that Public Safety Canada had more women employees than the CBC. If CBC claims they are progressive and corrections Canada has hired more women, its enough. Local journalism, all that lovey dovey stuff, its done. Faster we get rid of CBC better we all will be.
Jen, don't dump cpp in with "entitlements". Working people pay into that and get a very poor return on their money.