Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
^ $20B vs projections by 2030 wouldn't have made a huge difference to the budget?
I don't even know what to say to an assertion like that.
|
In 2012, when Harper announced his idea of moving the pension age up by two years (at Davos, at the World Economic Forum)
The National Post reported "
Internal government documents project the cost of the OAS system will climb from $36.5-billion in 2010 to $48-billion in 2015. By 2030 — when the number of seniors is expected to climb to 9.3 million from 4.7 million now — the cost of the program could reach $108-billion."
The most recent
Actuarial Study released in 2022 show that the current projected 2030 OAS cost will be less, at $82.3bn, but with GIS and Allowances it would be $107bn.
So despite the decision to drop the move from 65 to 67, we appear to be in no worse a position regarding OAS payments than we were in 2012.
The reason I don't view that decision as making a huge difference is because the changes would only have been intoduced last year, and worked through incrementally to 2028. So by 2030 there wouldn't have been a massive savings - basically every year the government would have paid out (at most) $3.7bn a year less on the total OAS bill by not giving 65 and 66 year olds OAS.
The number of OAS recipients (and the costs of OAS) would continue to increase steadily once the change had come in, because once pensioners reach 67 they get the payment, and there are still more retiring than dying off in the early 2030s.
$3.7bn a year less from a total government expenditure of $496.9bn isn't nothing, but it's also not a 'world is coming to an end as we know it' amount.
Here's a view of the OAS future liability from an outside observer. I'm not sure where you read that OAS is going to bankrupt the country, but that doesn't seem to be how its viewed by financial analysts.