General Updates and News

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Justin said it was wrong for Harper to give child allowances to wealthy parents.
Using Justin logic it must also be wrong to give OAS to wealthy people.
Justin decided it was better to mislead voters rather than explain child allowance paid to wealthy people would be taxed back in the same manner as OAS to wealthy people is taxed back.
In Nova Scotia a single person aged 65 receiving OAS and with a pension of $37,000 will see the $4,141 provincial age allowance reduced to $2,189 and pay $7,401 in income taxes.
There is a great deal of federal money wasted by sending monthly OAS payments to high income seniors and then clawing the money back.
Justin may be right that sending child allowance to wealthy parents is silly but he seems unwilling to say the same about OAS payments to wealthy people.
As for well off seniors in Nova Scotia it is easy to find them. Think of 2 HRM pensioners aged 65 and who earned an average of $50,000 before retiring; each one has a pension of $35,000 plus $10,000 CPP and another $6,840 OAS for a total of $51,840 per person.
A labourer at Halifax water starts at just over $20 an hour.

"Justin"?

Your post reads like a bad Harper attack ad.

You took something logical Trudeau actually said, then linked it to something illogical that he didn't actually say, then proceeding to rant and criticize the imaginary thing he didn't say.

In reality, wealthy people, of any age, shouldn't be getting such subsidies. But I'm sure they're happy *someone* is speaking up for them, now that the Harper crew has been cleared out by voters.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Yes, and to be honest the generalizations about "the boomers" and how most of our problems are their fault kind of reminds me of the responsibility that I, as a straight, (for all intents and purposes)-white male bear for all of society's current problems, even though I have deliberately not done most of the things that my demographic "generally does", for pretty much my entire life (and also that the non-white half of my family was actively discriminated against by the Canadian government to the point of being placed in prison camps, having their property confiscated by the government and sold out from under them, and being banished from BC. But I'm not a "visible" minority, and few people know the specifics of my family's history, so white privilege, right?). Likewise, there are plenty of boomers living in poverty, plenty who don't own cars, plenty who didn't choose to live in the suburbs, plenty who didn't have their careers handed to them on a silver platter, etc. To lump all of these people together simply by virtue of their age, and then blame "people from that age group in general" for a lot of major problems is unfair and not necessarily productive.

OTOH, I recently graduated with a master's degree in planning, and created Chebucto Water Taxi from scratch this year. Now the docks are closed and I am unemployed. Despite all the media attention and pats on the back from friends, acquaintances, colleagues and fairly well-connected strangers, after a month of applying to any and every relevant job I could think of locally, my current job prospects (if I'm lucky) are physical labour or working in a restaurant. Unfortunately it didn't occur to me that I could/might have to draw EI until it was too late - the company wasn't really set up for that this year. My parents have been pretty sympathetic to my situation (probably one more than the other, though) and have been helping me pay my rent etc. in the meantime, but I feel pretty terrible having to rely on them at 28, and it is certainly straining our relationship in some ways. By the time they were my age, they'd had a kid, bought a house, and were putting money into RRSPs. They were also from Alberta and raised in a culture of "work hard, don't rely on anybody else - you get what you deserve, no more, no less" (which is a large part of why relying on them for money is uncomfortable). I OTOH have quite a bit of debt, live in a tiny basement apartment with my best friend, and do not see myself in the position to support a child in the near-to-mid-term. Luckily, 30 is the new 20, as they* say. In many ways it feels like my adult life is really just starting, the way many in the previous generation probably felt when they graduated high school or turned 19 or got their first car.

*30 year olds, probably



On a related note, if anyone knows of any planning-related jobs available in HRM (can be very loosely related), please let me know.

Sorry to hear that, man. You should keep an eye out for the recent announcement by the Provincial Government, that they'll soon be posted something like 75 jobs with various provincial departments for recent graduates. Not sure if planning will be in the mix, but there maybe some municipal/provincial relations posts.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1322320-n.s.-plan-offers-jobs-for-youth

They're also aiming for a 5% youth hire target for all new hires. This seems to me an underwhelming target (shouldn't it be 50%?), but at least it's better than nothing, which is pretty much what every Provincial Government has done for decades for youth.

I'm not sure if I'm included in the people in the first paragraph of your post ("blaming the boomers"), for me, it's not really a question of blame at this point. It's a question of demographic reality and the necessary changes that we have to make to meet the challenge. Blame just freezes the debate and everyone. Change and action is required. Not blame.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Justin said it was wrong for Harper to give child allowances to wealthy parents.
Using Justin logic it must also be wrong to give OAS to wealthy people.
Justin decided it was better to mislead voters rather than explain child allowance paid to wealthy people would be taxed back in the same manner as OAS to wealthy people is taxed back.
In Nova Scotia a single person aged 65 receiving OAS and with a pension of $37,000 will see the $4,141 provincial age allowance reduced to $2,189 and pay $7,401 in income taxes.
There is a great deal of federal money wasted by sending monthly OAS payments to high income seniors and then clawing the money back.
Justin may be right that sending child allowance to wealthy parents is silly but he seems unwilling to say the same about OAS payments to wealthy people.
As for well off seniors in Nova Scotia it is easy to find them. Think of 2 HRM pensioners aged 65 and who earned an average of $50,000 before retiring; each one has a pension of $35,000 plus $10,000 CPP and another $6,840 OAS for a total of $51,840 per person.
A labourer at Halifax water starts at just over $20 an hour.

There is no logic when it comes to Justin. Rainbows and moonbeams, man.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I'm not sure if I'm included in the people in the first paragraph of your post ("blaming the boomers"), for me, it's not really a question of blame at this point. It's a question of demographic reality and the necessary changes that we have to make to meet the challenge. Blame just freezes the debate and everyone. Change and action is required. Not blame.

I guess I should have framed it in terms of "statements", not "people who say". I wasn't pointing to any specific people, just something that I hear often.

Edit: If this is the case though, I would be careful in terms of how you frame your arguments. Using the (buzz)word "boomers" a lot tends to freeze the debate, unintentionally, as people get defensive and feel that most of these things don't apply to them, kind of like "privilege", "entitlement", etc.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Justin said it was wrong for Harper to give child allowances to wealthy parents.
Using Justin logic it must also be wrong to give OAS to wealthy people.
Justin decided it was better to mislead voters rather than explain child allowance paid to wealthy people would be taxed back in the same manner as OAS to wealthy people is taxed back.
In Nova Scotia a single person aged 65 receiving OAS and with a pension of $37,000 will see the $4,141 provincial age allowance reduced to $2,189 and pay $7,401 in income taxes.
There is a great deal of federal money wasted by sending monthly OAS payments to high income seniors and then clawing the money back.
Justin may be right that sending child allowance to wealthy parents is silly but he seems unwilling to say the same about OAS payments to wealthy people.
As for well off seniors in Nova Scotia it is easy to find them. Think of 2 HRM pensioners aged 65 and who earned an average of $50,000 before retiring; each one has a pension of $35,000 plus $10,000 CPP and another $6,840 OAS for a total of $51,840 per person.
A labourer at Halifax water starts at just over $20 an hour.

For the record, I consider myself a reasonably well-informed voter. I followed the election campaign closely and follow Canadian politics even when it's not election time.

That said, everything you just said is Greek to me. I can't honestly say I know what OAS stands for. I will go out on a limb and suggest that many in my generation are in the same boat, and that this was not by any means a key election issue for most people my age. Maybe I'm wrong.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

That said, everything you just said is Greek to me. I can't honestly say I know what OAS stands for. I will go out on a limb and suggest that many in my generation are in the same boat, and that this was not by any means a key election issue for most people my age. Maybe I'm wrong.

I think this is one of the tricky problems of politics. The system is so complicated that everybody has a limited, provincial sort of view of it (senior benefits? child benefits? capital gains? trade deals?). In my experience almost everybody thinks that they are getting the short end of the stick, but actual treatment in terms of benefits and tax rates varies a lot. Often the wealthiest people are not the ones paying the highest tax rates and they have a much higher capacity to lobby for what they want. Generally speaking they have been making out like bandits for the past 30 years. Poverty persists only because of unfairness in taxation and the economy, not because there isn't enough to go around.

I know people who are multi-millionaires who feel poor when their investments go down a bit. Practical consequences to their life: zero. But they talk about it like poor people who have to choose between heating their house and buying food. Actually, I feel pretty poor right now because I just spent a lot of money in Whistler. Maybe I should get a tax break.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I guess I should have framed it in terms of "statements", not "people who say". I wasn't pointing to any specific people, just something that I hear often.

Edit: If this is the case though, I would be careful in terms of how you frame your arguments. Using the (buzz)word "boomers" a lot tends to freeze the debate, unintentionally, as people get defensive and feel that most of these things don't apply to them, kind of like "privilege", "entitlement", etc.

Fair enough, but I guess my use of "Boomer" isn't meant to be offensive; I just use it as shorthand to refer to the generation of people born after WWII, a large population boom, and the core demographic challenge for us between now and 2035.

When we say "Boomers", everyone knows what we're talking about, in the same way we also know who Generation X and Millennials, etc, are referring to (the latter are essentially the Echo Boomers, or children of Boomers).

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think this is one of the tricky problems of politics. The system is so complicated that everybody has a limited, provincial sort of view of it (senior benefits? child benefits? capital gains? trade deals?). In my experience almost everybody thinks that they are getting the short end of the stick, but actual treatment in terms of benefits and tax rates varies a lot. Often the wealthiest people are not the ones paying the highest tax rates and they have a much higher capacity to lobby for what they want. Generally speaking they have been making out like bandits for the past 30 years. Poverty persists only because of unfairness in taxation and the economy, not because there isn't enough to go around.

I know people who are multi-millionaires who feel poor when their investments go down a bit. Practical consequences to their life: zero. But they talk about it like poor people who have to choose between heating their house and buying food. Actually, I feel pretty poor right now because I just spent a lot of money in Whistler. Maybe I should get a tax break.

Pretty much.

We talk about taxes already being high on the wealthy, but almost all empirical research out there indicates that the optimum marginal tax rate on the wealthiest 1% is substantially higher than present levels. Some research finds it closer to 80% (study by Piketty, Saez, and Stantcheva) while other research find 70% (Saez and Diamond) and others at the very lowest, to be around 57%:

http://equitablegrowth.org/determining-optimal-u-s-tax-rate-higher-earners/

I'm not saying that we should therefore raise taxes to those heights on the 1%. But I do think all the chicken-little-ism (the sky will fall) that we see in media when Trudeau or other politicians pitch raising taxes on the wealthiest in Canada, is BS.

If you take a look at the tax act, and the TFSA and all the little breaks, and loopholes, that folks who can afford tax planners can take advantage of, reducing the amount of tax paid, you can see the logic/common sense in these findings.

[Colin May]

OAS is Old Age Security, a monthly payment starts 1 month after the age of 65 and the maximum is $569.95 and indexed.
" The payment amount for the Old Age Security pension is determined by how long you have lived in Canada after the age of 18. It is considered taxable income and is subject to a recovery tax if your individual net annual income is higher than the net world income threshold set for the year. "
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/servi...on+2013,+Benefits+for+Low+Income+Seniors

It was not a key election issue, my reference was to the Trudeau election promise : http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/justin-tr...t-go-to-rich-families-like-his-1.2480402
He promised to eliminate the monthly child care benefit because he believed wealthy families didn't need the money. My post indicated that wealthy seniors don't need OAS and the Trudeau government should apply the same logic to OAS as they apply to child care benefit.
If the rest of the post is Greek to any reader I suggest self-education about taxes and federal social expenditures.
Thanks to the Harper policies my GST is lower, my spouse and I have more money due to pension income splitting and the introduction of TFSA is one of those defining social policies on a par with medicare, OAS and CPP. If you don't have a TFSA start one ASAP.
Poverty exists because politicians have no interest in alleviating poverty. I don't think the word poor was uttered by any of the 3 leaders in the recent campaign. The return of the long form census will have no impact on the poor and the marginalised - there were protests at the legislature for more than a week after the film tax credit was reduced and the media were full of the issue. In contrast,taking away free bus passes for those on social assistance was a 5 minute blip in the news cycle.
I don't mind being called 'boomer'. I know how my parents & grandparents lived in Britain and what they endured; 2 world wars, the loss of relatives, and the cold war was ever present when I was a child. The introduction of the National Health Service in 1948 in Britain was a major change for them, and rationing did not end until 1954. Post war my father used his army pay to buy a nice new house - a few hundred yards from what was known as the largest coal mine in the world (since closed).
Yes, I have been the beneficiary of the post war boom as have you. Wealthy boomers may well be relieved of their money if they enter long term care or it will be passed on to the kids.

re : The 1% - http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada...y-canadas-middle-class-is-not-struggling
" But in Monday’s speech Trudeau went further than before in isolating just exactly who is to blame. It isn’t just that the middle class is struggling, it turns out. It’s that it’s being held down. The Canadian dream, he said, “has been taken from too many for the benefit of too few for too long.” Taken, note. By the “few.”
" But then, every line of the Liberal story is a fraud. The middle class isn’t struggling: the $53,000 the median family earned after tax in 2012 is an all-time high — 24 per cent more than in 1997, after inflation. The rich aren’t pulling away from the rest of us: the share of all income going to the top 1% has been falling steadily since 2006. At 10.3 per cent, it is back to where it was in 1998. Fairness? As it is, the top one per cent pay more than 20 per cent of all income taxes. "

[Keith P.]

^^^ This. All true, and an excellent post. Thank you Mr. May.

I fear that the election of Trudeau is Canada's equivalent to the USA electing Obama, perhaps the most ineffective and divisive President in that country's history. The similarities of the campaign and surge in public opinion leading up to election day are very close. I suspect the results after he is done will be equally bad for the country.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

.

re : The 1% - http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada...y-canadas-middle-class-is-not-struggling
" But in Monday’s speech Trudeau went further than before in isolating just exactly who is to blame. It isn’t just that the middle class is struggling, it turns out. It’s that it’s being held down. The Canadian dream, he said, “has been taken from too many for the benefit of too few for too long.” Taken, note. By the “few.”
" But then, every line of the Liberal story is a fraud. The middle class isn’t struggling: the $53,000 the median family earned after tax in 2012 is an all-time high — 24 per cent more than in 1997, after inflation. The rich aren’t pulling away from the rest of us: the share of all income going to the top 1% has been falling steadily since 2006. At 10.3 per cent, it is back to where it was in 1998. Fairness? As it is, the top one per cent pay more than 20 per cent of all income taxes. "

This is one of Coyne's favorite arguments about Trudeau, but the "success" of the middle class compared to the wealthiest is actually a story about increasing numbers of women participating in the labour force over time and the success of middle-class income gains in Alberta, an outlier, dragging up national averages.

Economists have provided persuasive responses to Coyne, who is actually quite wrong.

7 charts on why the middle class is doing so poorly
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/7-charts-on-why-the-middle-class-is-doing-so/

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

^^^ This. All true, and an excellent post. Thank you Mr. May.

I fear that the election of Trudeau is Canada's equivalent to the USA electing Obama, perhaps the most ineffective and divisive President in that country's history. The similarities of the campaign and surge in public opinion leading up to election day are very close. I suspect the results after he is done will be equally bad for the country.

LOL.

Oh come on. I presume, Keith, you remember how Bush left things in 2008? Financial system on verge of collapse. Economy tanking. Unemployment skyrocketing. Tens of millions without health insurance. Two ongoing wars.

Obama saved the financial system from collapse. Has turned the economy around, with hundreds of thousands of jobs being added monthly. The unemployment rate in the U.S. is back to what it was when the last time there was a decent economy in the U.S. -- Clinton, a Democrat, was in power. Tens of millions more Americans now have health care coverage thanks to Obamacare and Obama has brought a level of sobriety to a previously out of control American foreign policy. He even got Bin Laden, which Bush couldn't do because he was too busy trying to start other wars.

The only reason Obama has been "divisive" is because Republicans understood the threat he posed as a post-Boomer and post-partisan President, and set out to deny him every single potential political victory. They opposed him on everything he has done, seeking no compromise or middle ground. Obamacare was originally based on Romneycare, a Republican plan pitched in the 1990s). But not a single Republican voted for it.

This is nothing new. It's all been reported on. Washington Post has reported on this in a series of articles in 2011, about how the "Young Guns"-- new young GOP congressmen Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, and Eric Cantor-- decided on the very night of Obama's inauguration to recruit tea parties and oppose Obama on everything. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/...howdown/2011/08/03/gIQA9uqIzI_story.html

There are also books written about it: "The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era " http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Deal-Hidden-Change/dp/1451642326

Not long after the 2008 election, after his party had promoted him to minority whip, Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor summoned a few colleagues to his condo. The topic: How Republicans could take back Congress, as soon as possible. We’re not here to cut deals and get crumbs and stay in the minority for another 40 years,” he told them, according to some later reporting by Time’s Michael Grunwald. “We’re going to fight these guys. We’re down, but things are going to change.” The party would deny President Obama any bipartisan cover on his policies, and then it would beat him. Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...d_the_house_majority_leader_lose_to.html

The Republican Party has been radicalized since George W. Bush's Presidency, with moderates disappearing.

But that's not Obama's fault. It's because the GOP base has become radical. Look at whom Republican voters are today supporting for 2016: Trump and Carson, two clueless clowns, spewing racist and ridiculous policies daily.

If Trudeau turns out to be our version of Obama, then that would be an excellent result.

Thankfully, we can trust the wisdom of Canadian voters, who turfed out our own divisive clown, Harper.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

LOL.

Oh come on. I presume, Keith, you remember how Bush left things in 2008? Financial system on verge of collapse. Economy tanking. Unemployment skyrocketing. Tens of millions without health insurance. Two ongoing wars.

Obamacare is his one great achievement and it will never be rolled back.

The genesis of the 2008 financial collapse was the Clinton Democrats desire to see every American become a home owner and to do so by forcing lenders to provide mortgages to low income blacks and whites. This foolish vote getting policy is best illustrated by the evidence presented to a House committee by the man with well coiffed hair and diamond studded cuff links worn by the CEO of Countrywide Financial and looking every inch like a loan shark as he happily admitted to a questioner that one third of his loans resulted in the borrower failing to to make the first payment.

Wiki covers the financial collapse very well : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis as did NPR in a riveting documentary broadcast several times on PBS : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/
In the video, the CEO of Bank of America gets a late night call from Washington to get himself up there by the next morning to meet with the Feds re his possibility of backing out of the $50 billion takeover of Merrill Lynch. The top financial guy told him he better be at the meeting because " You know, we can appoint a new board ". Bank of America wanted to back out of the deal when they discovered the mess at Merrill but Washington made it clear that only one bank would be allowed to fail and they would force the merger through.
I know all about this because a) I was a Bank of America shareholder and b) the NPR documentary
or read about the Community Reinvestment Act
Or read this : http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323477604579000571334113350
or this from Time : http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html

[ILoveHalifax]

Is there a moderator who can bring this thread back on subject. As much as it was off topic, to start discussing Republican vs Obama on this forum is intolerable.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Is there a moderator who can bring this thread back on subject. As much as it was off topic, to start discussing Republican vs Obama on this forum is intolerable.

It's great to see discussion on here but I agree that it would probably be better to redirect it to another thread.

Here's one anybody who wants to discuss economic issues can use: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=144166&page=11

(It's an old thread, slightly renamed to be more general.)

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Is there a moderator who can bring this thread back on subject. As much as it was off topic, to start discussing Republican vs Obama on this forum is intolerable.

It morphed from careers in NS for young people into the boomers and then the 1% and then nasty bankers and Republicans (the greatest opponents of the bank bailouts).... etc and a bit of a trip down memory lane. Ignore history at your peril. Apologies to all.
On the local economy, I have unearthed more good material re Butts, his pay and the pay of senior staff. Look for the appropriate thread.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Obamacare is his one great achievement and it will never be rolled back.

The genesis of the 2008 financial collapse was the Clinton Democrats desire to see every American become a home owner and to do so by forcing lenders to provide mortgages to low income blacks and whites. This foolish vote getting policy is best illustrated by the evidence presented to a House committee by the man with well coiffed hair and diamond studded cuff links worn by the CEO of Countrywide Financial and looking every inch like a loan shark as he happily admitted to a questioner that one third of his loans resulted in the borrower failing to to make the first payment.

Wiki covers the financial collapse very well : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis as did NPR in a riveting documentary broadcast several times on PBS : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/
In the video, the CEO of Bank of America gets a late night call from Washington to get himself up there by the next morning to meet with the Feds re his possibility of backing out of the $50 billion takeover of Merrill Lynch. The top financial guy told him he better be at the meeting because " You know, we can appoint a new board ". Bank of America wanted to back out of the deal when they discovered the mess at Merrill but Washington made it clear that only one bank would be allowed to fail and they would force the merger through.
I know all about this because a) I was a Bank of America shareholder and b) the NPR documentary
or read about the Community Reinvestment Act
Or read this : http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323477604579000571334113350
or this from Time : http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html

I'll relent on this debate. This will be my last post.

I definitely agree that Clinton played a role in the financial crisis, but it was mostly in helping Republicans achieve their deregulation aims. In particular, it was Clinton signing-- and not veto'ing-- a *Republican* bill to repeal Glass–Steagall Act, the Depression Era statute that kept banks separate from their risky securities/investment practices. Republicans long worked to gut Glass–Steagall Act and Clinton helped them by signing on.

The housing bubble on it's own should not have been such an existential threat to the U.S. banking system. It became an existential problem when banks bundled and layered mortgages into asset-backed security (ABS), and then started to trade them in highly leveraged trades for profit, added to this was financial analysts, who had a financial interest / conflict of interest in these deals-- giving ridiculous valuations to these mortgage backed ABS.

In ways, the Volcker Act, passed under Obama-- and opposed by GOP every step of the way and the big bank lobby-- which increases capital requirements on banks with commercial securities investments, attempts to do indirectly what Glass–Steagall Act did directly.

Also, yes, Democrats promoted home ownership, but Bush made it a signature policy of his time:

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?pagewanted=all

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

Anyways, I'm done.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Colin May

It morphed from careers in NS for young people into the boomers and then the 1% and then nasty bankers and Republicans (the greatest opponents of the bank bailouts).... etc and a bit of a trip down memory lane. Ignore history at your peril. Apologies to all.
On the local economy, I have unearthed more good material re Butts, his pay and the pay of senior staff. Look for the appropriate thread.

Moderator could you please advise this poster that when you ask for the thread to get back on topic that he not continue to post off topic

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Well, OAS is $570 a month. It is means tested, but the income cap is $118,000 per person. You don't pay into OAS, you just get it. So you could have a person making 6 figures and getting a cheque from the government every month. That alone is a $100,000 benefit to somebody who started under the current payout regime will live to be 80.

Meanwhile the personal exemption on income tax is only $11,000. There are people paying income tax who make $20,000 a year, which is ridiculous.

I am not saying that seniors should be left impoverished, I am just saying that senior benefits should be means tested rather than paid out under the assumption that all seniors are poor. They're not, and conversely there are plenty of non-seniors who are poor and are hit hard by regressive taxes in Canada. I also think that governments could save a lot of money by applying means testing and only giving payouts to people who truly need the money.

I was confusing CPP with OAS, and yes I agree that there should be an income level over which people are no longer eligible. Good points.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Yes, and to be honest the generalizations about "the boomers" and how most of our problems are their fault kind of reminds me of the responsibility that I, as a straight, (for all intents and purposes)-white male bear for all of society's current problems, even though I have deliberately not done most of the things that my demographic "generally does", for pretty much my entire life (and also that the non-white half of my family was actively discriminated against by the Canadian government to the point of being placed in prison camps, having their property confiscated by the government and sold out from under them, and being banished from BC. But I'm not a "visible" minority, and few people know the specifics of my family's history, so white privilege, right?). Likewise, there are plenty of boomers living in poverty, plenty who don't own cars, plenty who didn't choose to live in the suburbs, plenty who didn't have their careers handed to them on a silver platter, etc. To lump all of these people together simply by virtue of their age, and then blame "people from that age group in general" for a lot of major problems is unfair and not necessarily productive.

OTOH, I recently graduated with a master's degree in planning, and created Chebucto Water Taxi from scratch this year. Now the docks are closed and I am unemployed. Despite all the media attention and pats on the back from friends, acquaintances, colleagues and fairly well-connected strangers, after a month of applying to any and every relevant job I could think of locally, my current job prospects (if I'm lucky) are physical labour or working in a restaurant. Unfortunately it didn't occur to me that I could/might have to draw EI until it was too late - the company wasn't really set up for that this year. My parents have been pretty sympathetic to my situation (probably one more than the other, though) and have been helping me pay my rent etc. in the meantime, but I feel pretty terrible having to rely on them at 28, and it is certainly straining our relationship in some ways. By the time they were my age, they'd had a kid, bought a house, and were putting money into RRSPs. They were also from Alberta and raised in a culture of "work hard, don't rely on anybody else - you get what you deserve, no more, no less" (which is a large part of why relying on them for money is uncomfortable). I OTOH have quite a bit of debt, live in a tiny basement apartment with my best friend, and do not see myself in the position to support a child in the near-to-mid-term. Luckily, 30 is the new 20, as they* say. In many ways it feels like my adult life is really just starting, the way many in the previous generation probably felt when they graduated high school or turned 19 or got their first car.

*30 year olds, probably



On a related note, if anyone knows of any planning-related jobs available in HRM (can be very loosely related), please let me know.

Thanks for the well-thought out post, and sorry to hear of your employment situation. I feel that it is really becoming tough out there for young university grads to find work in their chosen fields. It is really challenging to find something that you have a passion for that also has jobs available. I actually know a few people who had graduated with university degrees and never really worked in their chosen fields, and that has been for many years now. It sounds like that hasn't improved at all since then.

I wish you the best of luck!