>Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith said the government’s focus should be on generational fairness and helping younger generations.
Maybe it’s cause this is a National Post article but I hope the Liberals rationale for killing this bill is better than “it looks bad to young people”. We can, and should, help young people and also make sure seniors are taken care of. That’s what fairness means to me.
Wish this article, and the government, made the calculus more transparent. It’s hard to tell from a lay-person’s perspective what the outcomes of the Bloc’s bill would be.
It’s a good thing they seem to be poised to allow for a free vote. I’ll be interested to see how this saga progresses.
-GregTheGreat- on
I doubt the Bloc expected the Liberals to support this. They just needed to manufacture a justifiable reason to start voting to topple the government.
So now to avoid an election, the Liberals need to rely on an NDP that is starting to pass them in the polls. Things could get spicy, even if I still don’t expect an election until next budget.
_eleemosynary on
Does anyone here know why the BQ supports this? It seems like kind of a naked cash grab by the elderly, at a time when a lot of younger people are feeling quite squeezed financially. Does the BQ have some principled motive? or is it just pandering to the constituency that votes in higher numbers?
inconity on
Pandering to old Quebecers to gain favour before the next election. They’re a very large and reliable voting block in QC.
Longtimelurker2575 on
I would love to see an election as soon as possible but this bill is not good. There are other demographics in much worse shape than seniors.
sgtmattie on
Good. OAS is the part of the retirement puzzle that is in least need of being increased. That money would be much better used towards improving GIS so that we’re actually cutting down on poverty more efficiently.
I would be much more interested in a more revenue neutral change to OAS, where the same pot of money is distributed, but with more money per person and a much lower clawback income. Clawing back should end at 100k, not start at 80k.
I’m all for supporting seniors, but this is the stupidest way to do it.
SCM801 on
Good. Because it’s too expensive. What they should be doing instead is raise the retirement age. It’s been 65 since pensions were first created but that was a different time. Now the ratio between workers and retirees is getting smaller. It needs reform. Or else we’re going to be spending all of our taxes on OAS!
7 Comments
>Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith said the government’s focus should be on generational fairness and helping younger generations.
Maybe it’s cause this is a National Post article but I hope the Liberals rationale for killing this bill is better than “it looks bad to young people”. We can, and should, help young people and also make sure seniors are taken care of. That’s what fairness means to me.
Wish this article, and the government, made the calculus more transparent. It’s hard to tell from a lay-person’s perspective what the outcomes of the Bloc’s bill would be.
It’s a good thing they seem to be poised to allow for a free vote. I’ll be interested to see how this saga progresses.
I doubt the Bloc expected the Liberals to support this. They just needed to manufacture a justifiable reason to start voting to topple the government.
So now to avoid an election, the Liberals need to rely on an NDP that is starting to pass them in the polls. Things could get spicy, even if I still don’t expect an election until next budget.
Does anyone here know why the BQ supports this? It seems like kind of a naked cash grab by the elderly, at a time when a lot of younger people are feeling quite squeezed financially. Does the BQ have some principled motive? or is it just pandering to the constituency that votes in higher numbers?
Pandering to old Quebecers to gain favour before the next election. They’re a very large and reliable voting block in QC.
I would love to see an election as soon as possible but this bill is not good. There are other demographics in much worse shape than seniors.
Good. OAS is the part of the retirement puzzle that is in least need of being increased. That money would be much better used towards improving GIS so that we’re actually cutting down on poverty more efficiently.
I would be much more interested in a more revenue neutral change to OAS, where the same pot of money is distributed, but with more money per person and a much lower clawback income. Clawing back should end at 100k, not start at 80k.
I’m all for supporting seniors, but this is the stupidest way to do it.
Good. Because it’s too expensive. What they should be doing instead is raise the retirement age. It’s been 65 since pensions were first created but that was a different time. Now the ratio between workers and retirees is getting smaller. It needs reform. Or else we’re going to be spending all of our taxes on OAS!