Canadian Politics Thread

[Spur1]

5 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

Sorry, have no idea what you’re talking about. What does a senior making $140k/yr have to do with Conservatives taking away $16,800 over two years from  every  senior? Of course 140k guy isn’t affected but the average senior who needs it most surely is.

 

I don’t know why you are arguing this - one party tried to take from seniors while the other gave it back. 

Not only that Trudeau legalized my go to pain medication. Now I can just buy it at a store. 

[StrayDog]

46 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

My parents aren’t around anymore. But when they were they had real estate that kept them going into retirement. That was the way to go in the 1970’s and 1980’s. If you simply had bought a couple of properties back then your retirement was set for life. 
 

I know alot of seniors today didn’t follow this strategy so they don’t have that same net worth. They indeed need to eat catfood in order to survive. 

What about those of us whose parents didn't have the capital to buy "a couple of properties"? My parents didn't choose to not buy real estate; the choice was removed from them by them not having the assets needed. Good for you that your parent set you up in a good place, but don't state it like it was available to everyone and they opted out....

[Elias Pettersson]

4 minutes ago, StrayDog said:

What about those of us whose parents didn't have the capital to buy "a couple of properties"? My parents didn't choose to not buy real estate; the choice was removed from them by them not having the assets needed. Good for you that your parent set you up in a good place, but don't state it like it was available to everyone and they opted out....

 

Not everyone had the choice, this is true.  But alot of people did and didn't follow the strategy.  If everyone knew that prices would go up from $40k to $1 million+ for a house I am sure every parent would have followed the same strategy.

 

Also, the way the market is today you can't buy a home unless you have a massive downpayment.  So, you can blame our governments for that...

[Optimist Prime]

9 minutes ago, Spur1 said:

Not only that Trudeau legalized my go to pain medication. Now I can just buy it at a store. 

veterans affairs actually covers my prescription for this too. So thankful. pain and nightmare free sleep is greatly appreciated.

[Optimist Prime]

3 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Not everyone had the choice, this is true.  But alot of people did and didn't follow the strategy.  If everyone knew that prices would go up from $40k to $1 million+ for a house I am sure every parent would have followed the same strategy.

 

Also, the way the market is today you can't buy a home unless you have a massive downpayment.  So, you can blame our governments for that...

if everyone was buying 2nd and third houses, the cost of housing would be even more massive right now at this very minute and would have gotten to where we are now much much sooner. 

[Elias Pettersson]

16 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

Sorry, have no idea what you’re talking about. What does a senior making $140k/yr have to do with Conservatives taking away $16,800 over two years from  every  senior? Of course 140k guy isn’t affected but the average senior who needs it most surely is.

 

I don’t know why you are arguing this - one party tried to take from seniors while the other gave it back. 

 

I think you are a little bit confused, so let me alleviate your confusion on this topic.

 

The Liberals pushed back the OAS payment collection date from age 65 to age 67.  However, you can still collect your OAS at age 65 if you want to, so nothing has changed.  If your income is less than $91,000 the change doesn't affect you AT ALL.  You are still collecting your FULL OAS payment like nothing has changed.  So not sure why you keeping saying that the Conservatives took away $16,800 over two years from every senior.  What you are saying makes no sense.  Only seniors in the $91,000-$140,000 income bracket have their OAS payments clawed back, which is why I keep referencing those numbers.

 

Does that make sense now?

[Satchmo]

2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Not everyone had the choice, this is true.  But alot of people did and didn't follow the strategy.  If everyone knew that prices would go up from $40k to $1 million+ for a house I am sure every parent would have followed the same strategy.

 

Also, the way the market is today you can't buy a home unless you have a massive downpayment.  So, you can blame our governments for that...

One of EP40's great many talents is deflections.  They don't always work but he's always ready give it a to try.

[StrayDog]

1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Not everyone had the choice, this is true.  But alot of people did and didn't follow the strategy.  If everyone knew that prices would go up from $40k to $1 million+ for a house I am sure every parent would have followed the same strategy.

 

Also, the way the market is today you can't buy a home unless you have a massive downpayment.  So, you can blame our governments for that...

You still say it like everyone could just walk in and buy a house then. A 40k mortgage for my parents in 1970-whatever would have been a pipe dream. You sound like everyone else I've known who came from well-to-do families.

And I do blame our governments for the inability for anyone to purchase a home unless you make an obnoxious amount of money.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

7 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The Liberals pushed back the OAS payment collection date from age 65 to age 67. 

 

You might want to check your facts.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/old-age-security/benefit-amount.html

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-to-return-oas-eligibility-to-65/article29271018/

Edited January 11 by 6of1_halfdozenofother

[Optimist Prime]

I salute Ed Broadbent's legacy of course, a great Canadian. This quote made me laugh though. The high priced Toronto Lawyer, Mr Dhaliwal said this today:

Quote

“I have often said that Ed was who I wanted to be when I grew up. He taught me about leadership and how to turn political principle into actions that helped improve the lives of Canadians,” Singh said.

 

 Oh forgive me, i mean the down to earth common man Mr Singh. I get those two confused all the time, they look a lot alike. 
The Toronto Lawyer on the left, the simple talking MP from Burnaby on the right:

 

Anyways, I don't believe he ever wanted to be Ed Broadbent while growing up. I believe he thinks that is a good thing to say in 2024 though. 

[Shift-4]

32 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Step 1: be born on third base...

 

Is that enough surface area for delivery?

[Elias Pettersson]

10 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

if everyone was buying 2nd and third houses, the cost of housing would be even more massive right now at this very minute and would have gotten to where we are now much much sooner. 

 

Well Trudeau does have a $20 million real estate porftfolio so I guess him and his family have been contributing to the problem...

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, Miss Korea said:

 

I was in Canada.  Some meatheads in a car drove past me, threw half a cup of Tim's (wasn't hot) and yelled "Hong Kong go fuck your mom".  I could see the ladies in the car laughing at me when I turned around.  I think I was 12.

 

I shouldn't take that personally, right?  @The Arrogant Worms is telling me it's not racism, it's called fun.  Right?

 

Of course you should those people are redneck assholes.

[Elias Pettersson]

8 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

You might want to check your facts.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/old-age-security/benefit-amount.html

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-to-return-oas-eligibility-to-65/article29271018/

 

It was pushed back to age 67 for anyone who wanted to defer it so it wouldn't affect their incomes and taxes if they were still working.  However, you can still collect it at age 65 which is what I pointed out in another post.  That has never changed.  Previously it was mandatory that you had to start collecting it at age 65...

 

EDIT:  It looks like you can actually defer it to age 70 now...

 

You can delay payment of the Old Age Security pension for up to 60 months (5 years) after you are 65. The longer you delay, the larger your pension payment will be each month.

Edited January 11 by Elias Pettersson

[Optimist Prime]

@The Arrogant Worms

@Miss Korea

 

Just a note to be kind in how we speak to each other. Racism is a terrible thing to experience first hand. My half sister was relentlessly harassed by the so called white community and the first nations community as she had a foot in both realities. her reality was extremely difficult. I am so proud of her, attaining post secondary knowledge and then going back to both of those communities and working in social services to enhance the lives of others. My heart bleeds at the historical injustices that First Nations folks were dealt and are still facing today, and at the injustice many newer Canadians face simply for being who they are. I know you are both great folks, so I just wanted to remind everyone that we are all in this human race together. Peace love and beads as my old Sgt Major used to sing out.  Oh, and the cover of my aunt's book about her dad's work in Korea, pretty cool. I have some statues from the late 1800s, early 1900's Korea to this day from her, and I treasure them greatly. 

It's a small world after all. 

[Bob Long]

Even if the CPC had good economic ideas (which they don't) their socially regressive ideas and MPs make them unsupportable to me and many former PC voters.

 

PPs pissy little approach might get him more support while people are angry but that can work for politicians. Sad for Canada but maybe we need to learn the hard way again.

[The Arrogant Worms]

9 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

@The Arrogant Worms

@Miss Korea

 

Just a note to be kind in how we speak to each other. Racism is a terrible thing to experience first hand. My half sister was relentlessly harassed by the so called white community and the first nations community as she had a foot in both realities. her reality was extremely difficult. I am so proud of her, attaining post secondary knowledge and then going back to both of those communities and working in social services to enhance the lives of others. My heart bleeds at the historical injustices that First Nations folks were dealt and are still facing today. I know you are both great folks, so I just wanted to remind everyone that we are all in this human race together. Peace love and beads as my old Sgt Major used to sing out.  

Agree 100%.  I take issue with being called an old white racist when she knows nothing about me.  It is bordering on libel.

Edited January 11 by The Arrogant Worms

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

6 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

It was pushed back to age 67 for anyone who wanted to defer it so it wouldn't affect their incomes and taxes if they were still working.  However, you can still collect it at age 65 which is what I pointed out in another post.  That has never changed.  Previously it was mandatory that you had to start collecting it at age 65...

 

EDIT:  It looks like you can actually defer it to age 70 now...

 

You can delay payment of the Old Age Security pension for up to 60 months (5 years) after you are 65. The longer you delay, the larger your pension payment will be each month.

 

There's a difference between deferring, which is what the current government allowed to continue based on the harper changes, vs. mandatory pushing of eligibility to start receiving from 65 to 67, which is what the harper government wanted and the current government rescinded.  The former is a user-prerogative, while the latter is a mandated requirement.

[Bob Long]

9 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

It was pushed back to age 67 for anyone who wanted to defer it so it wouldn't affect their incomes and taxes if they were still working.  However, you can still collect it at age 65 which is what I pointed out in another post.  That has never changed.  Previously it was mandatory that you had to start collecting it at age 65...

 

EDIT:  It looks like you can actually defer it to age 70 now...

 

You can delay payment of the Old Age Security pension for up to 60 months (5 years) after you are 65. The longer you delay, the larger your pension payment will be each month.

 

Deferral only helps people that can afford to wait. Not a good option for poor seniors.

[4petesake]

18 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

I think you are a little bit confused, so let me alleviate your confusion on this topic.

 

The Liberals pushed back the OAS payment collection date from age 65 to age 67.  However, you can still collect your OAS at age 65 if you want to, so nothing has changed.  If your income is less than $91,000 the change doesn't affect you AT ALL.  You are still collecting your FULL OAS payment like nothing has changed.  So not sure why you keeping saying that the Conservatives took away $16,800 over two years from every senior.  What you are saying makes no sense.  Only seniors in the $91,000-$140,000 income bracket have their OAS payments clawed back, which is why I keep referencing those numbers.

 

Does that make sense now?

 

No, you have it quite backwards. The Libs reversed the OAS eligibility requirement from 67 back to 65. We are talking about entitlement not deferrals. In fact it was part of Trudeau’s  platform that helped him win the election.

 

The country was on track to push the eligibility for Old Age Security (OAS) benefits from 65 to 67, as many other nations, including Australia, have done with some entitlement in recent years. 

Pointing to an international trend, former prime minister Stephen Harper first floated the idea at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2012. The 65-to-67 rule became official policy of his conservative government in the federal budget a couple of months later. 

Acknowledging the potential blow-back from Canada's seniors and soon-to-be seniors, Mr Harper made the move gradual, phasing it in during the 2020s. 

Unpopular as the idea was, it made some sense. More than 5 million Canadians are expected to reach retirement age next decade. By delaying benefits for two more years, the Harper government was hoping to save about $10 billion a year.

[5forFighting]

2 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Guess which party leader said he wouldn't reduce immigration?

 

Weird deflection. Immigration should be stopped for 2 years. You are trying to blame a guy who isn't PM instead of the people in charge. Very telling. 

[5forFighting]

44 minutes ago, Spur1 said:

Not only that Trudeau legalized my go to pain medication. Now I can just buy it at a store. 

The best thing they ever did. 

[Miss Korea]

5 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Agree 100%.  I take issue with being called an old white racist when she know nothing about me.  It is bordering on libel.

 

Don't be offended by it.  After all, you shouldn't be taking these things personally...

 

1 minute ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

OMG.  Go back and read.  I did NOT ever do it.

 

Fair enough.  But you're definitely condoning it.  How do you not understand that blackface was never an okay thing?  Like honestly - what the fuck was the point of you sharing that story?

 

People make mistakes.  People can do bad things.  I have made mistakes and done bad things.  The best anyone can do is learn from their past and be better moving forward, and not parade the old times like it was a good thing.

[Miss Korea]

1 minute ago, 5forFighting said:

Weird deflection. Immigration should be stopped for 2 years. You are trying to blame a guy who isn't PM instead of the people in charge. Very telling. 

 

If that's what you want.  And I'm telling right now Pierre has ZERO interest in doing that.  That's all I'm saying.  You can take that however you want, but that's straight up facts.  Pierre Poilievre will not reduce immigration.  The only leader who has been vocally opposed to immigration is Maxime Bernier.

[Elias Pettersson]

10 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

No, you have it quite backwards. The Libs reversed the OAS eligibility requirement from 67 back to 65. We are talking about entitlement not deferrals. In fact it was part of Trudeau’s  platform that helped him win the election.

 

The country was on track to push the eligibility for Old Age Security (OAS) benefits from 65 to 67, as many other nations, including Australia, have done with some entitlement in recent years. 

Pointing to an international trend, former prime minister Stephen Harper first floated the idea at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2012. The 65-to-67 rule became official policy of his conservative government in the federal budget a couple of months later. 

Acknowledging the potential blow-back from Canada's seniors and soon-to-be seniors, Mr Harper made the move gradual, phasing it in during the 2020s. 

Unpopular as the idea was, it made some sense. More than 5 million Canadians are expected to reach retirement age next decade. By delaying benefits for two more years, the Harper government was hoping to save about $10 billion a year.

 

When someone is wrong they should admit it.  I was wrong.  I am sorry.

 

The only defence that I have is that is wasn't going to start until the year 2023, which was last year...

 

Does OAS Start at 65 or 67? - Savvy New Canadians

 

The Old Age Security (OAS) pension starts at 65. While there were plans by Harper’s Conservative government to increase the eligibility age from 65 to 67 starting in 2023, this plan was reversed in 2016 when the Liberals came to power.

 

Please carry on.  This thread seems to have become more lively today.  I do have to do some work, so I'll be back later to respond to the usual suspects...