Old Age Security in Canada

The sacred and the profane. Social benefits we all rely upon are sacred. Anything that threatens them through the government that administers those benefits re-visiting the parameters of entitlement and adjusting them for the general advantage of society attempting to continue affording those benefits is profane. We rely on those social benefits as a society. We've become accustomed to them as valued expectations.

And now, the country's Old Age Security program is under threat, as some would have it. In actuarial terms is does appear to be under threat. For the simple reason that a large elderly demographic is looming in the near future, one so large that its supporting needs represent a truly difficult burden for the shrinking working, tax-paying public that pays to support social benefits like the Old Age Pension.

The rationale is that people have worked long and hard all their lives, and in the process have transferred wealth to the country, administered by the government of the day. Because there is a universal entitlement to social security, to health insurance, to old age security and unemployment benefits, the state of welfare in the country has deep meaning to everyone. Because everyone will at some time draw upon it.

On the plus side, as a society, we're healthier than ever before, living longer than ever before, and we're also on average ourselves wealthier than our predecessors. Which makes the concept of universality of such benefits questionable; why are they universal? Even with claw-back, it seems absurd that people on pension earning over $67,000 annually still qualify for Old Age Pension.

The cut-off for that pension supplement should be much, much lower. Pensionable earnings should be more reflective of a $40,000 (and under) family income before the state's pension allowance should kick in. And then, it should not be taxable. Middle-class pensioners don't really need the top-off of their income to come from the public purse. Those living more modest lives with modest incomes do.

And, because we're healthier as we grow older, it seems reasonable enough that it would take to age 67 to qualify for receiving a state pension. Even at that age there are enough people who have no plans to step away from the workforce, and plan to continue working, just because they take pride in work and it gives meaning to their lives.

So, it ill behooves the Official Opposition to scream bloody murder at the Conservative government for its plans to alter the qualifications for Old Age Pension benefits. It makes good fiscal sense, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford the current plan given the burgeoning numbers of retirees on the horizon, and the fewer numbers who support them.