I agree with you. But I would go much further. Clawback currently starts at an individual's net income of $90K. Since seniors can split pension and RRIF income, a couple will likely equalize their income, so for them, clawback starts at $180,000 of joint income. Just think. Couples receiving $180,000 a year do not have to give back their…
I agree with you. But I would go much further. Clawback currently starts at an individual's net income of $90K. Since seniors can split pension and RRIF income, a couple will likely equalize their income, so for them, clawback starts at $180,000 of joint income. Just think. Couples receiving $180,000 a year do not have to give back their OAS except in the normal course of raxation.
I think that the clawback point should be halved, to $45,000 per person or $90,000 per couple. The savings could be used to enrich and extend the GIS, which targets the truly needy.
Of course, there are political problems. Voter participation is much higher for the old than for the young, so it is attractive politically to target benefits at the old. Most young people are not paying attention, and as a result don't care.
I agree with you. But I would go much further. Clawback currently starts at an individual's net income of $90K. Since seniors can split pension and RRIF income, a couple will likely equalize their income, so for them, clawback starts at $180,000 of joint income. Just think. Couples receiving $180,000 a year do not have to give back their OAS except in the normal course of raxation.
I think that the clawback point should be halved, to $45,000 per person or $90,000 per couple. The savings could be used to enrich and extend the GIS, which targets the truly needy.
Of course, there are political problems. Voter participation is much higher for the old than for the young, so it is attractive politically to target benefits at the old. Most young people are not paying attention, and as a result don't care.