PL1
Senior Member
If they cap OAS at 100k (or whatever), that number absolutely must be indexed to inflation
|
|
|
PM Mark Carney's Canada
- Thread starter Richard White
- Start date
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Jonny5
Senior Member
I think the Darlington build is more of a proof of concept in a location already approved for these types of facilities so in future it can be deployed widely across Canada.
This isn't only Ontario wanting this, other provinces like Quebec, Alberta, and Saskatchewan are definitely watching the project to see how it goes and will jump on it if it works. Alberta has been wanting to start adding nuclear power for decades but couldn't make a business case for massive Ontario-style mega plants with eight reactors. To the GoC, this is really to help them get in to the nuclear game that they foolishly missed out on in the 80's and 90's.
kEiThZ
Superstar
And while OAS is clawed back at $97k of individual income, CCB starts getting clawed back at $37.5k FAMILY income. And phased out at $81k. How is that at all defensible?
kEiThZ
Superstar
Especially start you have > 60 yrs alive, you should have assets and savings to buffer you. Which people with $100k income clearly do.
lenaitch
Senior Member
I agree. The specialized staff, high capacity grid connections, etc. are already in place.
lenaitch
Senior Member
That's not what the law says.
The cut from your link says:
- Ontario - The Child, Youth, and Family Services Act states that parents must not leave children under 16 years of age without making reasonable provisions for their supervision and care. While there is no specific minimum age, leaving a young child alone could be considered neglect if it puts them at risk.
(3) No person having charge of a child less than sixteen years of age shall leave the child without making provision for his or her supervision and care that is reasonable in the circumstances.
It's not and black and white as you make it out to be.
UtakataNoAnnex
Superstar
Going at it alone...?
Yesterday:
bsky.app
bsky.app
Today:
bsky.app
Yesterday:
Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social)
Carney: But this decades-long process of an ever-closer economic relationship with the United States is now over. And as a consequence, many of our former strengths as a country—more particularly, our economic strengths based on close ties to America—have now become our vulnerabilities…
bsky.app
Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social)
Carney: Up until now, more than 70 cents of every dollar of military capital spending by our government has gone to the United States. With our new Defense Investment Agency, we’ll make sure we build more of our security and defense capabilities here at home
bsky.app
Today:
Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)
Carney: "We can't control the trade policy of the US. We recognize it has fundamentally changed from the policy in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, & it's a situation where US has tariffs against every trading partner... what we we can control is developing new partnerships, including w/econ giants of Asia"
bsky.app
kEiThZ
Superstar
This is perhaps the craziest parts of the current system. Despite spending so much, we haven't actually alleviated poverty entirely for seniors. Meanwhile we are literally giving vacation money to those who easily be top 10% income in the country.
I could support spending more on poor seniors. Paying off the high end of the wealthiest demographic cohort in the country while kids starve, huddling together in shoebox condos, is insane policy.
Moreover spending on seniors is basically crowding out every other government priority. In a time of substantial geopolitical tension, OAS spending is greater than the defence budget. In a time of struggling families, OAS is greater than CCB. It's greater than any environmental initiatives or infrastructure spending we do. Basically, the rest of us are mostly working not to better our lives, or our country, or our world. We're working so our parents and grandparents can go on vacation. And given the state of finances in this country, a lot of that is now deficit funded too.
.
..
Analysis of the 2024 Federal Budget
We’ve already shared with you our humble opinion on why it’s momentous for a government to name generational fairness as a focal point for fiscal planning. At the same time, we know that fixing the generational tensions that crept into our economy and policies over decades requires more than...
www.gensqueeze.ca
kEiThZ
Superstar
When did this become about a family of 3 or 4? The discussion was about Old Age Security being received by those making six figures in income.
And those of us advocating to cut back on OAS for high earners actually agree with you. That money could do better elsewhere. Notably for families who make less.
As an example, if I do 5 more years in the CAF, my military pension will be $90k per year. And I'll start collecting at the age of 50. I don't think I should get several hundred dollars more per month, on top of that, at 67. But for some reason, some folks would rather I get that than a poor senior or a struggling family.
The original intent of OAS was to provide something to homemakers who didn't work and collect pensions. Since then, it's evolved into an expensive giveaway to the wealthiest cohort in the country. All because they vote.
zang
Senior Member
Yes, but when the argument is made that $100k is a comfortable total income; that's debatable in a city like Toronto.
I don't think we do agree on this. OAS is a form of guaranteed basic income. It should be given to all regardless of income, because means testing is almost always abused and shrunk in the name of austerity. But lets be honest, to those who don't need it, it's not a huge boost anyway. It should be guaranteed, regardless. Let those who don't need it, pay it back in their taxes.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Carney faces historic choice between South Korea and Europe for submarine fleet
Canada’s planned purchase of 12 subs could break tradition in Indo-Pacific shift to South Korea
www.theglobeandmail.com
Get them to throw in a Hyundai car plant and we have a deal.
kEiThZ
Superstar
$100k is plenty, for one person, in Toronto. Even in today's economy. And especially for a senior, who has millions in assets (unlikely to have a retiree without millions making that income). Again, go look at the stats and tell me how many people make this much?
And if you're going to argue that it's hard to survive on $100k, all I gotta say is, "tough". As a taxpayer, I don't want policy built on feelings, but statistics. And Stats Can says the LICO for Toronto isn't anywhere close to six figures.
Guaranteed basic income programs take actual income into account and adjust payments to meet then that minimum income requirement. OAS does no such thing. GIS is closer to what you think. But OAS itself is far too loose.
Northern Light
Superstar
(I know you're countering the nonsensical statement......bear with me)
Dear lord..........
I got my house keys at the age of 9, walked home from school, saw mom when she got in from work ~6pm.
On Fridays I went home, fed the cats, then went back out and caught the subway to downtown, changed lines, got off the subway, met my mother at her office, and then we would go out for dinner.
When I was .... 9...
The notion that children under 16 can't be left unattended is complete and utter nonsense, and its child abuse to shelter your child that much.
Northern Light
Superstar
OAS is not to support a family with young children, its for senior citizens.
If you do have young children, and made 100k a year, you would still get the National Child Benefit (albeit not the max)
The current maximum for school-aged childcare is $22 per day, not $30, and it will drop to $10 next September.