OAS für Senioren mit höherem Einkommen kürzen? 73 % sagen „Ja“, wie eine neue Umfrage zeigt

**In Brief:**

* A new poll finds there is growing support for a proposal to lower an Old Age Security (OAS) threshold for some Canadians in order to help reduce the federal government’s deficit.
* 73% of Canadians polled this month said they support such a move, which would effectively trim back Old Age Security from higher income tiers, according to Generation Squeeze’s research poll.
* Nearly three quarters of respondents said they supported this proposal, that was on the condition that the savings are used to eliminate seniors’ poverty and reduce living costs for younger generations.
* Canadian think tank advocacy group, Generation Squeeze says that by lowering the current income threshold for when OAS benefits begin to gradually phase out — for couples, from $185,000 down to $100,000 —  Ottawa could save up to $7 billion annually.
* Approximately six in 10 respondents said they would support lowering the threshold even further to $81,000 or less. By doing so, the annual savings would rise to roughly $13 billion.
* OAS is one of the most costly contributors to Ottawa’s roughly $78 billion projected deficit.

Why do the other 27% think a single person needs OAS with over $95k annual income.

I’m just a couple years away from collecting my OAS and I fully support this. I know lots of my peers have more money than they need to get by and this is just bonus money that gets stockpiled. If this money was used to make things better for seniors who don’t have a lot of savings it would be better spent.

Absolutely. Boomers are the majority and voted in their interests, including for governments that underfunded our services for decades and protected individuals with existing real estate more than those who didn’t own property.

If they are no longer in the majority, let democracy do its thing. Certainly that makes as much sense as that generation’s lack of foresight (on average of course, there are always individual exceptions).

Whatever party promises to cut OAS gets my vote. Such a drain on Canada’s finances which does nothing but funnel money from working people who need it to well off boomers so they can buy their second home in Florida

Wait, there are retired couples making a combined 185 000$ getting OAS benefits?

Christ.

This is the single easiest way to improve the country’s finances or to free up capital for infrastructure. The Liberals and Conservatives get into exasperating debates over what is essentially nickel and dime bullshit. Meanwhile, this massive handout to wealthy voters is obviously an insane waste of taxpayer money.

Write to your MP, we should have done this years ago, but the best time to do it is today.

The Boomer got cheap housing and an amazing stock market. If they are making more than the average Canadian they don’t need what is supposed to be old age security. Not “your cottage needs a hot tub” money.

Higher income seniors? That’s a no brainer …what about higher liquidated net worth seniors? In essence I could live off a TFSA for years and years (if I have accumulated enough in it) and my annual income would be effectively zero. Then I collect OAS and CPP and am swimming in cash.

I don’t think they know how tax efficient some people can be.

CPP you paid into
OAS no one paid into. It’s tax dollars that funds it.

Not that it shouldn’t necessarily happen, but the article says I’d if they it cut down to households at 100k instead, it would save 7 billion a year. Going down to 81k household income would save 13 billion.

A billion is a billion and of course is lot of money but reading comments about OAS, people act like this would solve any fiscal issue Canada has or would ever have and that all seniors made tons of money when it’s like less than 10 percent of the cost comes from those high income individuals.

Speaking as a couple who will likely not _need_ OAS at all by the time my wife and I are old enough to qualify for it, I would love the option to just say NO give it to people who need it more.

We have to leave some money for the next generation so bring on the trim.

OAS is a targeted form of welfare and should be treated as such. It should only go to those with a demonstrated need and should be based on household income.

Makes sense to me. Scale it back for wealthy seniors and raise the qualifying income for other benefits that help working age people. More help for low income seniors as well.

I am a low income senior, and the amount I receive from OAS, CPP, GIS and various Provincial subsidies is not a large amount, particularly with rent now being so much higher than COL adjustments. I do not understand why seniors who have such a high income from investments, CPP and private pensions are receiving OAS.

Although, it must be noted that OAS is taxable, so it is not as absurd as it appears. And simply raising the tax rate on all higher income earners would accomplish the same thing as a lower OAS clawback, and generate even more revenue. Or we could do both.

If OAS was removed from higher income seniors, this money could be used to raise the standard of living of lower income seniors. The way for this to be targeted would be to raise the GIS, which is an income tested portion of the guaranteed retirement income. Some of those monies could also be used to help younger generations buy their own home via generous mortgage subsidies or down-payment grants.

From the article: *Nearly three quarters of respondents said they supported this proposal, that was on the condition that the savings are used to eliminate seniors’ poverty and reduce living costs for younger generations.*

I do not understand from the comments why a senior being a homeowner is relevant. They were not provided a home by the government, they worked for it and payed down that mortgage for most of their lives. There are a large number on seniors who own their homes, but are cash poor.

We can welcome good ideas on how to give younger generations the same opportunities to own a home as the seniors did (hint: wealth taxes were as high as 70% – 91% in the 1960s). But there is a difference between an intelligent discussion on income equity, and ageist rhetoric which always seems to permeate discussions such as this. If you want to change things, then go and vote, join a political party, and participate in policy making. Don’t just complain that seniors vote. Everyone in a democracy votes for their own interests, that is how it works.

My husband and I live in a one bedroom apartment and have bus passes. I really need the OAS to pay the bills. Why should another couple who have a car (or two) a big house or deluxe condo and don’t have to shop the sales get additional monies to their CPP that they could happily live without? Not saying I want the difference, but it should be saved for those who need it.