Federal Government & Politics II

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by harls

He just needs a bowtie and rewind the clock 20 years. Would fit right in.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by harls

Apple munching doesn't seem to work. Maybe PP should partake in a watermelon eating contest to show us how mighty his incisors are.

The Apple munching did two things. It shut down the local reporter with the inane suppositions and riled up all those that feel threatened by a guy eating an apple and quietly batting down inane questions.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Gresto

Dad had an innate charisma and sapience that J.T. completely lacks, despite his contrivances to the contrary. I have always thought of him as a phoney, going all the way back to the funeral when he gave that excruciatingly theatrical eulogy for his father. Even so, almost anyone is preferable to the contemptible, splenetic Poilievre.

I've never forgotten my then nearly 80 year old mother watching that eulogy and saying to me "that kid's going to be Prime Minister some day".

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

The Apple munching did two things. It shut down the local reporter with the inane suppositions and riled up all those that feel threatened by a guy eating an apple and quietly batting down inane questions.

I think there is a small group of voters that don't respond well to Poilievre's messaging, but it's hard to argue with results. He is polling even higher now than he did before the apple video and the response to it outside of left leaning echo chambers has been mostly positive.

I would disagree that anyone with a pulse would be leading in the polls as dramatically as Poilievre is. Pierre has been a strong communicator and effectively set the political tone since becoming CPC leader. Neither of the major alternatives (Patrick Brown and Jean Charest) campaigned on cost of living and housing, for example. It was really only PP and Scott Aitchison that made these leading political issues. Without that, most young voters that the CPC has now captured would be either voting NDP out of frustration or completely politically disillusioned and abstaining from voting altogether.

[casper]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

He makes a lot of sense!

You can go too Woke, and inspire the other (darker) side. You may not like the backlash.

JT has gotta go. We need a good dose of centrist sanity in Canada.

Well the video is wrong.

So Canada has the most polluted cities in North American? Yes, due to forest fires. We are at least doing something about it by adopted aggressive plans to address climate change.

The rest of his point equally irrational.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Loco101

What's interesting is that the wealthiest people getting OAS and even GIS are not really Liberal supporting types. That's what makes it complicated because PP won't be able to change much of anything without backlash from his own supporters.

And for OAS, you get the full amount if your annual income is below $90,997 and nothing if it is above $148,065 if you are between ages 65 to 74.

For those 75 and older, you get nothing if your annual income is above $153,771.

Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-...ary-march.html

Both the Harper and Trudeau governments made changes that meant the need for more public servants and more complicated changes to computer programs and paperwork. I know because I've worked in it. Under Harper it was the pension splitting and under Trudeau it was the 10% extra in OAS for those aged 75 and above. There have also been other smaller changes.

MPs have been getting many letters and emails from constituents about OAS and GIS not being enough to live on. I really can't see any politician proposing to reduce payments. The only possibility is to freeze the "cut-off" income levels for awhile and not have them go up with cost of living increases but even that would be very risky politically.

The median household income is something like 70k. It is ridiculous that people can make double the median income and still get OAS. To me clawing back should start at about 75% of the median income and there should be no OAS above 125%. As Truenorth says, some of the money could go to low income seniors.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by lio45

Poilievre and O'Toole can't be directly compared, the former has the benefit of two more years of JT's destruction.

That's very true. The first few years of Trudeau's reign were not great and he certainly had his fair share of scandals but I don't really think any more so than most PMs. The last 5 years, however, have been catastrophic and they have been directly due to Trudeau's immigration policies and his new social programs that will cannot afford while our most basic programs like healthcare are rotting to the core. All this while our per-capita GDP continues to decline while our national debt is soaring with no end in sight.

Trudeau can talk all he wants but all PP has to do during the campaign is go to any local park with their now obligatory tent cities to show Canadians how far and how fast he has plunged our standard of living and quality of life. The man has singlehandedly managed to crucify our economy and for the vast majority of Canadians, ANYONE is better than Trudeau. The traditional ABC vote {anyone but Conservative} has morphed into the ABT vote {anyone but Trudeau}.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The median household income is something like 70k. It is ridiculous that people can make double the median income and still get OAS. To me clawing back should start at about 75% of the median income and there should be no OAS above 125%. As Truenorth says, some of the money could go to low income seniors.

I agree that the current income amounts are too high. But just proposing to lower the levels means political suicide. Whoever wins the next election will be faced with higher deficits just with OAS costs alone. I've read at my workplace that the next 15-20 years will be the most difficult in terms of OAS costs but will improve quite a bit after that. It really doesn't matter who is in government but it's the fact that so many people became eligible for OAS over the last 10-15 years.

[harls]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

The Apple munching did two things. It shut down the local reporter with the inane suppositions and riled up all those that feel threatened by a guy eating an apple and quietly batting down inane questions.

It also made him look like a total prick, which sane people already knew.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The median household income is something like 70k. It is ridiculous that people can make double the median income and still get OAS. To me clawing back should start at about 75% of the median income and there should be no OAS above 125%. As Truenorth says, some of the money could go to low income seniors.

I go even lower than that. I think people have forgotten what the purpose of these programs were. It was to avoid seniors ending up in poverty. We've now turned into some kind of lifestyle bonus for upper middle class seniors. That's why I say set the floor at LICO (which should theoretically keep a person out of poverty) and phase out by 2 x LICO.

Politically, it's not hard. Only 5% of seniors get clawed back. But that's at today's $82k. If most of these folks are voting CPC, they have nowhere to go an.d aren't likely concentrated enough to cost seats. Maybe if you set the ceiling at 2 x LICO (~$40-55k), you'll get (I'm guessing) 20% of seniors. I still think the CPC could afford to sacrifice those votes. Especially, if they offset some of that with an increase to low income seniors.

OAS + GIS is something like ~$1200/mo give or take for a housewife who never contributed to C/QPP or has other income. That's not enough to live on. Compare that to the pre-Covid LICO.

I think something a Guaranteed Basic Income of LICO, plus OAS clawed back at 25% is close to my goal of 2 x LICO in most jurisdictions.

Also, max CPP is $17 500. And you have to be maxing out a lot of years to get that. They need to increase the premiums and design the program so that most people hit LICO on CPP basically guaranteeing they won't need a supplement for their basic income and simply go right to an OAS getting clawed back.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I agree that the current income amounts are too high. But just proposing to lower the levels means political suicide. Whoever wins the next election will be faced with higher deficits just with OAS costs alone. I've read at my workplace that the next 15-20 years will be the most difficult in terms of OAS costs but will improve quite a bit after that. It really doesn't matter who is in government but it's the fact that so many people became eligible for OAS over the last 10-15 years.

Growing the working population of Canada helps to some extent. However that is unpopular for other reasons just now.

I don't think any political party is gong to look at major changes. But what could be done is to freeze OAS increases and the money that would normally go into annual OAS increases be put into GIS.

The GIS already has a means test the eliminates eligibility for those that have other significant sources of income.

Doing that would ensure those that need are receiving it whole reducing the amount going to those that are already well off.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

Growing the working population of Canada helps to some extent. However that is unpopular for other reasons just now.

I don't think any political party is gong to look at major changes. But what could be done is to freeze OAS increases and the money that would normally go into annual OAS increases be put into GIS.

The GIS already has a means test the eliminates eligibility for those that have other significant sources of income.

Doing that would ensure those that need are receiving it whole reducing the amount going to those that are already well off.

Growing the population with low-income workers who are themselves entitled to a whole bunch of benefits does not help.

I agree no part will promise cutting OAS in an election, but one might have the good sense to do what Chrétien did an make cutbacks after winning a comfortable majority.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I agree that the current income amounts are too high. But just proposing to lower the levels means political suicide. Whoever wins the next election will be faced with higher deficits just with OAS costs alone. I've read at my workplace that the next 15-20 years will be the most difficult in terms of OAS costs but will improve quite a bit after that. It really doesn't matter who is in government but it's the fact that so many people became eligible for OAS over the last 10-15 years.

OK so some rare encouraging news for kids' future!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That's very true. The first few years of Trudeau's reign were not great and he certainly had his fair share of scandals but I don't really think any more so than most PMs. The last 5 years, however, have been catastrophic and they have been directly due to Trudeau's immigration policies and his new social programs that will cannot afford while our most basic programs like healthcare are rotting to the core. All this while our per-capita GDP continues to decline while our national debt is soaring with no end in sight.
.

I don't think our actual GDP per capita is declining in sheer numbers is it? Though it is in decline relative to our western peers, i.e. it's growing more slowly than most of them. So we're losing ground.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't think our actual GDP per capita is declining in sheer numbers is it? Though it is in decline relative to our western peers, i.e. it's growing more slowly than most of them. So we're losing ground.

No, it is declining in sheer numbers and has been since Q3 of 2022.



https://economics.td.com/domains/eco...ve/chart_7.png

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

No, it is declining in sheer numbers and has been since Q3 of 2022.



https://economics.td.com/domains/eco...ve/chart_7.png

OK thanks for the update.

[kwoldtimer]

The declining GDP per capita seems to be a thing at the moment.

Question: Hasn't our GDP per capita fallen every time Canada has had a recession, or economic growth below the rate of population increase?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by harls

It also made him look like a total prick, which sane people already knew.

this x 2

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

OK so some rare encouraging news for kids' future!

I hope that was sarcastic. Running massive deficits to pay off the cohort with the most assets and the least poverty is rather unjust (aside from being unsustainable).

The next government is going to have to implement 90s style cuts. And it's going to be a choice of what to prioritize. I hope they start with reform of the support system for seniors. The current system is wholly unsustainable, yet somehow doesn't provide enough for those who need it the most, while also basically pushing every cent of fiscal capacity towards the support of seniors while ditching literally every other priority.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't think our actual GDP per capita is declining in sheer numbers is it? Though it is in decline relative to our western peers, i.e. it's growing more slowly than most of them. So we're losing ground.

Actually our GDP-per-capita is growing relative to our peers*
Let's reelect JT!



*South Sudan, Syria, Niger, Burundi.