Federal Government & Politics II

[Truenorth00]

Until I listened to this podcast, I had no clue. OAS has basically taken up all fiscal room in federal budgets. Literally every other priority (on both the right and the left) is being rendered unaffordable by this. On the podcast, they mentioned too that the only way to continue paying for this, if cuts aren't acceptable, will be to raise taxes substantially, with the method discussed being the reversal of the GST/HST cut.

Speer has presented his work to the Conservative caucus and warned them that without addressing the elephant in the room (OAS), no marquis tax cut will be affordable.

Personally I think we have to immediately impose an income limit on OAS. And then start progressively raising the age. Maybe move it up 2 month per year till we hit 70 in about 30 years from now? I would also think CPP needs to be bolstered to ensure that most people with a regular working life don't end up collecting OAS.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Was listening to a Gen Squeeze podcast episode interview with Sean Speer (a former Harper economic policy advisor). Him and Paul Kershaw (of Gen Squeeze) have written a series of articles pointing out that growing OAS obligations are driving a structural deficit that threatens literally every other goal of both the Trudeau government and a future CPC government. This means everything from child benefits to defence spending. The fact that OAS growth accounts for 83% of the deficit blows my mind. And that makes it also really hard to balance the books and meet demands (for example on defence spending.

OAS is basically eating the federal budget and driving deficit spending. So either we cut OAS entitlements, raise taxes or cut other services and priorities, or take on tens of billions in new debt to basically maintain OAS.

It is impressive.

Bleed out the young to pay for the old.

It’s literally every facet of life, seemingly. Housing, entitlements, immigration, debt. I suppose the game plan is to just hope we can keep ladelling on debt at this juncture. Until we can’t.

Western countries exist as old-people retirement villages, not countries aiming for a better tomorrow for their young.

Then get all sanctimonious at the kids when the TFR goes into the tank. I wonder if Canada will hit sub 1.0 TFR. Probably, I imagine.

It’s going to be a lame, long, drawn out process. Sorry kids, you’re getting the shaft.

[ConundrumNL]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Was listening to a Gen Squeeze podcast episode interview with Sean Speer (a former Harper economic policy advisor). Him and Paul Kershaw (of Gen Squeeze) have written a series of articles pointing out that growing OAS obligations are driving a structural deficit that threatens literally every other goal of both the Trudeau government and a future CPC government. This means everything from child benefits to defence spending. The fact that OAS growth accounts for 83% of the deficit blows my mind. And that makes it also really hard to balance the books and meet demands (for example on defence spending.

Gen Squeeze republication link: https://www.gensqueeze.ca/protect_oa...s_for_retirees

Interesting read. Amazing to me that politicians can completely ignore this, especially the ones railing the current government on spending. We could literally cut everything else and barely make a dent.

Which generation forms the larger voter bloc in Canada now? I assume it's still the Baby Boomers, which would explain the political inaction on this.

[Innsertnamehere]

Because seniors are politicians largest voting block. Trudeau not only rolled back Harpers changes to OAS for a reason, but he also increased OAS for seniors over 75.


Unfortunately, touching OAS destroys your chances in an election.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Because seniors are politicians largest voting block. Trudeau not only rolled back Harpers changes to OAS for a reason, but he also increased OAS for seniors over 75.


Unfortunately, touching OAS destroys your chances in an election.

Democracy at its worst: when a small but politically critical group demands that the country goes to shit in the long term because it's advantageous for them immediately and temporarily.

[Acajack]

I believe Millennials actually passed Baby Boomers are the largest demographic in Canada very very recently.

[Acajack]

I've been mostly offline for a few days, so wanted to say that the vote on making the oath to the King optional was defeated in the House of Commons on Wednesday, by a roughly 2 to 1 margin.

I checked on the vote and it seems like the Liberals were quite split except for the Cabinet which was subject to blanket Nay vote. A few non-Cabinet Liberals from Quebec voted Nay, whereas a number of ROCer Liberals (and not just francophones) voted Yea.

All Conservatives from Quebec voted Yea I believe, whereas almost all of their colleagues outside Quebec voted Nay.

Almost all NDPers voted Yea I think.

And of course the Yea vote was unanimous from the Bloc.

The defeat of the proposal was followed by spontaneous singing of God Save the King in the House by one can only assume to be Conservative MPs. (Quite surprised that enough of them would know the words in order to do that!)

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I've been mostly offline for a few days, so wanted to say that the vote on making the oath to the King optional was defeated in the House of Commons on Wednesday, by a roughly 2 to 1 margin.

I checked on the vote and it seems like the Liberals were quite split except for the Cabinet which was subject to blanket Nay vote. A few non-Cabinet Liberals from Quebec voted Nay, whereas a number of ROCer Liberals (and not just francophones) voted Yea.

All Conservatives from Quebec voted Yea I believe, whereas almost all of their colleagues outside Quebec voted Nay.

Almost all NDPers voted Yea I think.

And of course the Yea vote was unanimous from the Bloc.

The defeat of the proposal was followed by spontaneous singing of God Save the King in the House by one can only assume to be Conservative MPs. (Quite surprised that enough of them would know the words in order to do that!)

Too bad, it would have been a good symbol of decolonization. At least, in Québec at the provincial level, MNAs don't have to stoop to pledging allegiance to a foreign monarch.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Until I listened to this podcast, I had no clue. OAS has basically taken up all fiscal room in federal budgets. Literally every other priority (on both the right and the left) is being rendered unaffordable by this. On the podcast, they mentioned too that the only way to continue paying for this, if cuts aren't acceptable, will be to raise taxes substantially, with the method discussed being the reversal of the GST/HST cut.

Speer has presented his work to the Conservative caucus and warned them that without addressing the elephant in the room (OAS), no marquis tax cut will be affordable.

Personally I think we have to immediately impose an income limit on OAS. And then start progressively raising the age. Maybe move it up 2 month per year till we hit 70 in about 30 years from now? I would also think CPP needs to be bolstered to ensure that most people with a regular working life don't end up collecting OAS.

I had no idea either. We are so smug CPP is solvent but basically if you count OAS it is as bankrupt as Social Security. Probably more so. (If the US pitched in 5% of govt expenditures rising to 10% their problem is easily solved). Maybe this is the real reason for our massive boost in immigration. The new CPP would seem to allow a drastic reduction in OAS without undue hardship. So millennials will get to pay extra for their own CPP, a bunch of taxes in their prime 2030-2050 earning years and then get no OAS themselves.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I had no idea either. We are so smug CPP is solvent but basically if you count OAS it is as bankrupt as Social Security. Probably more so. (If the US pitched in 5% of govt expenditures rising to 10% their problem is easily solved). Maybe this is the real reason for our massive boost in immigration. The new CPP would seem to allow a drastic reduction in OAS without undue hardship. So millennials will get to pay extra for their own CPP, a bunch of taxes in their prime 2030-2050 earning years and then get no OAS themselves.

I think this is the reason for high immigration. If Kershaw and Speer are right, OAS is growing multiples faster as a liability, than literally any other government priority. We're taking about something growing faster than child benefits, that multiples of the defence budget, etc. The only way to keep this going is to massively increase GDP immediately. The only way to do that is immigration. Otherwise, they have to raise taxes substantially or basically cut everything else.

It also kinda tells us why the CPC is so focused on the carbon tax. There's nowhere else to play for them. But the carbon tax is basically a revenue neutral fee and rebate scheme. Eliminating it is good politics. But it doesn't do anything at all to fix this reality. They will have some hard choices ahead.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I had no idea either. We are so smug CPP is solvent but basically if you count OAS it is as bankrupt as Social Security. Probably more so. (If the US pitched in 5% of govt expenditures rising to 10% their problem is easily solved). Maybe this is the real reason for our massive boost in immigration. The new CPP would seem to allow a drastic reduction in OAS without undue hardship. So millennials will get to pay extra for their own CPP, a bunch of taxes in their prime 2030-2050 earning years and then get no OAS themselves.

I think most people assumed OAS wasn't that big a liability given that it's literally peanuts (less than 10K a year) for the maximum individual payout.

But multiply that by X million people and growing, and it becomes a huge amount of money.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Too bad, it would have been a good symbol of decolonization. At least, in Québec at the provincial level, MNAs don't have to stoop to pledging allegiance to a foreign monarch.

Legally at least, it's not really a "foreign" monarch. For us, King Charles III is the King of Canada, not of England, and he is a Canadian citizen automatically.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Legally at least, it's not really a "foreign" monarch. For us, King Charles III is the King of Canada, not of England, and he is a Canadian citizen automatically.

This is something that always escapes people's comprehension or ability to understand.

The monarch is equally King of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and his other Commonwealth realms. There is no subservience to a foreign power implied or intended.

King Charles III is King of Canada. Period. End of statement.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This is something that always escapes people's comprehension or ability to understand.

The monarch is equally King of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and his other Commonwealth realms. There is no subservience to a foreign power implied or intended.

King Charles III is King of Canada. Period. End of statement.

Well the King is a foreign power and the GG has authority to act on their behalf. Hence the incorrect she is our head of state language that is sometimes used. This actually takes away one of the main benefits of the monarchy as a bad actor could appoint a subservient GG and do whatever they want (with caucus support). If the king was deciding things like peroguing parliament the foreign power would be a reasonable argument.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There is no subservience to a foreign power implied or intended.

That's only true because the King doesn't actually do anything, because otherwise, if we were ruled by KCIII rather than by Justin Trudeau or Pierre Poilievre, we'd be totally subservient to a bunch of people in London (not the one in Ontario...) who never set foot in Canada and have no knowledge of it.

(Note that I'm not necessarily saying this would be a bad thing -- King Charles III as a dictator would likely be a great improvement over JT or PP.)

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Legally at least, it's not really a "foreign" monarch. For us, King Charles III is the King of Canada, not of England, and he is a Canadian citizen automatically.

I know that, but in practice he is foreign. He doesn't live in Canada and barely visits (which isn't a bad thing since every visit is so expensive...). His Canadian citizenship is merely a technicality.

The point is that pledging loyalty to a living anachronism is very medieval. I love the Middle Ages, but I wouldn't like to live there. I like indoor plumbing, antibiotics and democracy. Giving a pledge of allegiance to a king (even if he was a local one) is another medieval thing that should go the way of the Inquisition, Viking raids and witch burning.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

I know that, but in practice he is foreign. He doesn't live in Canada and barely visits (which isn't a bad thing since every visit is so expensive...). His Canadian citizenship is merely a technicality.

The point is that pledging loyalty to a living anachronism is very medieval. I love the Middle Ages, but I wouldn't like to live there. I like indoor plumbing, antibiotics and democracy. Giving a pledge of allegiance to a king (even if he was a local one) is another medieval thing that should go the way of the Inquisition, Viking raids and witch burning.

I know and as you are aware I am on your side for this. Just explaining the legal framework that we're in.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

The point is that pledging loyalty to a living anachronism is very medieval.

Very true. I recall the debate over this, the PQ was totally correct in pointing out their loyalty is actually to their constituents, not to the British Royal Family.

The only oath that should be required upon taking office is to the people of your riding, period.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well the King is a foreign power and the GG has authority to act on their behalf. Hence the incorrect she is our head of state language that is sometimes used. This actually takes away one of the main benefits of the monarchy as a bad actor could appoint a subservient GG and do whatever they want (with caucus support). If the king was deciding things like peroguing parliament the foreign power would be a reasonable argument.

The King is not a "foreign power." He is King of Canada, who just happens to be resident (most of the time) in the UK.

Mary Simon is not our head of state. King Charles III is. Her role (as the Kings viceroy), is to represent him in Canada during state occasions, and, to give assent to bills passed by the parliament.

lio45 says that the King (and by extension) the GG "don't do anything", but, they have important reserve powers never meant to be used except in times of political crisis. Americans pledge allegiance to the constitution, not the president. Canadians pledge allegiance to the King, not the prime minister. There are good reasons why we do things this way. It helps to prevent tyranny and dictatorship.

Chuck has more than a passing interest in Canada. He has regulars meetings with JT by videolink. I don't know how frequently they occur. JT meets with Mary Simon weekly.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I know and as you are aware I am on your side for this. Just explaining the legal framework that we're in.

I wasn't aiming at you, I just used your post to further my point.