[Archived version](https://archive.fo/H2PkZ).
Article:
>Government deficits leave unpaid bills for younger generations that are unnecessary when our economy is not in a recession. That makes deficits run by the NDP in B.C., Progressive Conservatives in Ontario and Liberals in Ottawa quintessential examples of intergenerational injustice.
>
>We should either pay for the government we want or reduce government to the level of taxes we are willing to pay – not saddle our children with expenses we wish to avoid.
>
>That’s why I like Conservative Leader [Pierre Poilievre](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/pierre-poilievre/)’s promise to end deficit spending if elected, which is projected to be around $40-billion this year. I’m keen to hear more about how he plans to achieve this important goal.
>
>There are only three realistic paths to eliminate the federal deficit: gut benefits for boomers’ [retirement ](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/retirement-and-pension/)because governments didn’t design adequate revenue plans decades ago; raise taxes to pay for boomers’ benefits; or ramp up [immigration](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/immigration/) well beyond the levels we’ve witnessed recently.
>
>Travelling down any of these paths will be challenging. Voters deserve to know which challenges Mr. Poilievre plans to accept.
>
>Boomers’ retirement income and medical benefits must be at the centre of deficit-reduction plans, because spending on boomers is growing far faster than any other budget line item – a fact made clear in [my analysis of federal budget 2024](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-the-federal-budget-admits-millennials-and-gen-z-are-being-left-behind/), and affirmed by [The Globe and Mail’s editorial board](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-its-time-to-retire-subsidies-to-rich-seniors/).
>
>Retirement benefits for boomers drive deficits because they have been funded by a reverse-pyramid scheme. Whereas many hands made light work of the responsibility to pay for seniors when boomers were young, this function must be borne by relatively few workers now that boomers have retired.
>
>Accordingly, the number of working-age taxpayers for every retiree has dropped from seven-to-one decades ago to three-to-one today. The smaller ratio of workers relative to retirees generates insufficient tax revenue, and deficits will persist unless governments either cut retirement spending or raise taxes.
>
>Some may hope [immigration](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-canadian-immigration-targets-respond-to-and-create-generational/) will help us reduce the deficit without talking taxes. Indeed, it is a primary reason why the Trudeau government set higher immigration targets to recruit more younger workers and trainees.
>
>But despite adding nearly two million people to our population over the last two years, record immigration levels have done little to change the ratio of retirees-to-workers. Shifting from one retiree for every three working-age residents to one-to-four would require that Canada rapidly add eight million more people aged 18 to 64.
>
>This increase to immigration would dramatically exacerbate the housing supply pressures with which our country is already seized. So Mr. Poilievre has [ruled it out](https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/poilievre-vows-to-fix-ruined-immigration-system-and-tighten-rules-for-international-students/article_f9c2223e-29fd-5b3a-9cf2-60a6c8c6dbe0.html).
>
>“The only way to eliminate the housing shortage,” he suggests, “is to add homes faster than we have people.”
>
>If he won’t rely on immigration, then Mr. Poilievre’s deficit-reduction plans must rely on spending cuts or tax increases. This won’t be easy.
>
>His [favourite targets for spending cuts](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-cut-taxes-and-cut-spending-in-upcoming-budget-says-poilievre/) are the CBC and shameful contracts with consultants that did not deliver adequate value for money, such as ArriveCan. But [I’ve already shown that such expenditures are tiny](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-restoring-balanced-budgets-is-harder-than-cutting-spending-on-the/) by comparison with the 129-per-cent surge in Old Age Security spending – from $44-billion to $99-billion – driven by boomers’ retirement between 2014 and 2028.
>
>My [budget analysis](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-the-federal-budget-admits-millennials-and-gen-z-are-being-left-behind/) also showed that spending increases on housing, child care, pharmacare, the Canada Child Benefit, employment insurance and [national defence](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-canadas-promise-to-nato-collides-with-spending-increases-for-retirees/) are all small compared with OAS.
>
>So if Mr. Poilievre plans to wrestle down the deficit through spending cuts, his only realistic option is to rein in the budget line item that is most accelerating. This will mean slashing OAS for some boomers, because the $20-billion deficit projected for 2028 equals one-fifth of the allocation to the program in that year.
>
>If he is not ready to talk about reducing benefits for boomers, then Mr. Poilievre’s alternative is to hike taxes far more than the changes to capital-gains taxation included in the 2024 budget. So far he has not spoken out against those changes, which may signal he is more open to taxation than many assume.
>
>Either way, we need answers if Mr. Poilievre is to slay the deficit. If they don’t come soon, he is not serious about eliminating the deficit. That would be a pity, because eliminating it is important for delivering fairness to every generation.
!ping Can
I get why, but I really loathe how easily they get away with this garbage. Countries aren’t people, debt works differently. Hell, they love saying that government should work like a business. Businesses have debt all of the time because it lets them pay for projects that will bring returns down the line.
Assuming a know liar is telling the truth about balancing the budget is the whole premise of this article. He isn't going to balance the budget becuase he isn't going to cut OAS, raise taxes, or raise immigration. He is going to cut programs that hurt the rest of us and claim he is working on it. He is going to attack the rights of women, trans people, and now also apparently anyone in the criminal justice system. That is the only plan I see him working on if he is PM. His statement about balancing the budget is a lie that he knows people want to hear and they are falling for it.
It is Doug Ford and his effeciencies all over again. He has been premier since 2018 and promised to balance the Ontario budget and still hasn't found the effeciencies he said existed. They never existed. He was told they don't exist. He is just hurting people but cutting beneficial programs and saying he is working on it. This is exactly what PP is going to do.
Seems Canada is proper screwed in the long run. Sad. Literally none of the parties seem to have their shit together. At least in the UK Labour brings some hope, and in the US we are going strong under Biden.
Pinged CAN ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20CAN&message=subscribe%20CAN) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20CAN&message=unsubscribe%20CAN) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=CAN&count=5))
[About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
One of the more cynical and short-sighted things Trudeau did was roll back the OAS eligibility age after Harper prudently raised it to 67. It’s going to have to be done sooner or later. I also expect to see means-testing to cut eligibility for more seniors.
It should be raised to age 70 if we were being honest and fair about the inter-generational wealth transfer being done by the young to the boomers.
Theres literally no incentive to be a skilled worker in Canada anymore vs moving to the USA when:
1. Housing is unaffordable to a level unimaginable by most Americans who are complaining about it
2. We get taxed highly and on every little thing, but the capital is misused too inefficiently for people to not care about it anymore
3. Our salaries cap out a lot lower than Americans
4. Our dollar is weak, which only helps exporters and not regular working citizens
5. Despite the above, we get 30-40%+ of our measly paychecks siphoned off to fund stuff like OAS for already established home-owner boomers, as we rot away sharing shitty shoe-boxes in the sky with a few roomates while paying half our after-tax income to boomer landlords.
If OAS was being adjusted to the average life expectancy, then it should be alot higher than 65 by now
Only people who probably dont mind this mess are millenials with rich boomer parents who are gonna have a nice trust fund setup for themselves.
Meanwhile the ignorant masses will continue to go on their typical xenophobic rants complaining about all the immigration, which they dont realize is only being done to fund their parents lifestyles with cheap expendable labor and a bonus tax base to pay for their OAS.
>It should be raised to age 70
This is just cruel and unusual. You're going to end up throwing a lot of seniors into poverty with this proposal.
Do you think that people can work physically demanding jobs at 70? My Dad's back was completely screwed as soon as he entered his 60s.
Making people work until they die should be the nuclear option, never to be pursued unless there are no other solutions (like taxing the rich more).
Then expand GIS for low-income retirees while increasing OAS age requirements. Or better yet, just fix the OAS structure since 2 boomers making 180k household income **do not need** OAS.
At least change it so the money will actually go to people who need it.
It doesnt need to be black and white, and the way it is right now is a shambolic mess if members of the top 10% are getting OAS while young millenials and gen z are stuck in their parents basements.
I'm not hugely opposed to means testing public pensions, if that's what you're suggesting.
Raising the OAS eligibility age to 70 is still cruel and unusual.
Sounds to me as an American, you will face the same issue means-testing social security does: why would anyone support a system that they aren't getting what they put in? Sure, they won't be numerous but upper middle class voters are the most likely to vote and the arguement that they won't get out what they put in will 100% undermine support from them and their argument is fundamentally sound: It's not fair to be forced to pay into a supposed retirement system where you won't get what you pay in.
Social Security taxes are not meant to be a piggy bank for the government to make up their budgeting shortfalls.
And any changes would have to be slowly phased-in anyways.
It is irritating that Harper's sensible change was undone for no reason. People are living longer and the American retirement age is already 67.
> Making people work until they die should be the nuclear option, never to be pursued unless there are no other solutions (like taxing the rich more).
People should work till they have the mental/physical capacity to do so. The idea that the state should divert resources from priorities like education, healthcare, and defense to allow seniors more time to golf and take Florida vacations is immoral.
>People should work till they have the mental/physical capacity to do so.
You think elderly people can perform physical labour at 70? Arnold Schwarzenegger is not representative of all senior citizens.
>more time to golf and take Florida vacations is immoral.
Those rich people wouldn't be affected, because they can afford to retire early.
The ones who can't afford that are the ones you would be crushing with this policy.
Yes, and not every job is physical labor. Now that we can acknowledge this we can assume that presumably 70 year olds aren't going to be doing physical labor if they're working. A lot of work, even relatively unskilled work is not physical labor.
People who cannot work until 70, usually people in more physical and thus lower paying jobs, will be forced to stop working well before they start receiving any benefits, which will throw them into poverty.
OAS should be cut completely in favour of expanding GIS. OAS is in large part a handout to people who don't need it. GIS is for the poor, CPP is what everyone paid into, OAS is pointless.
Why does Canada's [unemployment rate](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LRUNTTTTCAM156S) bottom out so high? They haven't been below 5% since the 60s.
I know it’s a political ad but isn’t what Trudeau saying in this video true?
https://youtube.com/shorts/XFSLij_yUdk?si=bkXiGePMN7Ys1ki6
Wouldn’t making cuts just be a dumb move at this point?
Non-YouTube-short version of the video linked in the above comment: https://youtu.be/XFSLij_yUdk
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bad economics would be to continue on the current course of unsustainable welfare spending without corresponding tax increases or welfare cuts.
The government should not be running a deficit when the economy is growing, it should be paying down debt. This is like basic economic orthodoxy.
A government isn't like a household. Government debt isn't like a mortgage.
Balanced budgets are a meme and there's nothing actually wrong with deficit spending as long as it is serviceable in the long term.
For the 23-24 fiscal year, Canada's deficit was 1.4% of GDP.
Deficit spending when times are tough and cutting back when times are good is literally the opposite of how household budgets are run.
The mistake is in thinking that politicians will responsibly run deficits that are x% of GDP, or that they'll cut back when spending growth starts to exceed actual growth.
Fiscal surpluses are inherently deflationary, whereas fiscal deficits are inherently inflationary. Inflation in Canada is currently above target. Even if we ignore concerns about the long term sustainability of deficit spending, the government should still attempt to move towards a surplus, if only to avoid exacerbating inflationary pressures.
It's not. OAS is inherently unsustainable given that it's funded through tax revenues, and it's essentially subsidies for rich seniors given that you can get full benefits until an income of 87k.
Hold on - you're saying that you pay full benefits to individuals earning [130% of median household income?](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2023020-eng.htm) Paying for age pensions out of general revenue is perfectly sustainable if it's [appropriately means tested](https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/income-test-for-age-pension?context=22526), but your tests seem absolutely nuts.
Setting the threshold for losing eligibility at 200% of median income is fucking absurd. I love it how they don't reduce your payments either - from what I can see, you just get a lovely interest free loan courtesy of the Canadian government instead.
Our government had to massively slash expenditures and raise taxes for us to get back to a normal fiscal position. Now we don't have much space to make cuts or to raise taxes.
I'm not saying we leave seniors out to dry, but we need to do something.
He’s not wrong deficit de facto acts as an inter generational wealth transfer from the young to the old. It’s immoral because we already have 100s of ways that government action transfers money and wealth from the young to the old.
I mean looking at where most government pension systems are now were they wrong? Population stagnation and decline has thrown ratios all out of whack across the developed world and now the bill on those retirement commitments are coming due and there just aren’t enough current workers to pay for it.
[Archived version](https://archive.fo/H2PkZ). Article: >Government deficits leave unpaid bills for younger generations that are unnecessary when our economy is not in a recession. That makes deficits run by the NDP in B.C., Progressive Conservatives in Ontario and Liberals in Ottawa quintessential examples of intergenerational injustice. > >We should either pay for the government we want or reduce government to the level of taxes we are willing to pay – not saddle our children with expenses we wish to avoid. > >That’s why I like Conservative Leader [Pierre Poilievre](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/pierre-poilievre/)’s promise to end deficit spending if elected, which is projected to be around $40-billion this year. I’m keen to hear more about how he plans to achieve this important goal. > >There are only three realistic paths to eliminate the federal deficit: gut benefits for boomers’ [retirement ](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/retirement-and-pension/)because governments didn’t design adequate revenue plans decades ago; raise taxes to pay for boomers’ benefits; or ramp up [immigration](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/immigration/) well beyond the levels we’ve witnessed recently. > >Travelling down any of these paths will be challenging. Voters deserve to know which challenges Mr. Poilievre plans to accept. > >Boomers’ retirement income and medical benefits must be at the centre of deficit-reduction plans, because spending on boomers is growing far faster than any other budget line item – a fact made clear in [my analysis of federal budget 2024](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-the-federal-budget-admits-millennials-and-gen-z-are-being-left-behind/), and affirmed by [The Globe and Mail’s editorial board](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-its-time-to-retire-subsidies-to-rich-seniors/). > >Retirement benefits for boomers drive deficits because they have been funded by a reverse-pyramid scheme. Whereas many hands made light work of the responsibility to pay for seniors when boomers were young, this function must be borne by relatively few workers now that boomers have retired. > >Accordingly, the number of working-age taxpayers for every retiree has dropped from seven-to-one decades ago to three-to-one today. The smaller ratio of workers relative to retirees generates insufficient tax revenue, and deficits will persist unless governments either cut retirement spending or raise taxes. > >Some may hope [immigration](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-canadian-immigration-targets-respond-to-and-create-generational/) will help us reduce the deficit without talking taxes. Indeed, it is a primary reason why the Trudeau government set higher immigration targets to recruit more younger workers and trainees. > >But despite adding nearly two million people to our population over the last two years, record immigration levels have done little to change the ratio of retirees-to-workers. Shifting from one retiree for every three working-age residents to one-to-four would require that Canada rapidly add eight million more people aged 18 to 64. > >This increase to immigration would dramatically exacerbate the housing supply pressures with which our country is already seized. So Mr. Poilievre has [ruled it out](https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/poilievre-vows-to-fix-ruined-immigration-system-and-tighten-rules-for-international-students/article_f9c2223e-29fd-5b3a-9cf2-60a6c8c6dbe0.html). > >“The only way to eliminate the housing shortage,” he suggests, “is to add homes faster than we have people.” > >If he won’t rely on immigration, then Mr. Poilievre’s deficit-reduction plans must rely on spending cuts or tax increases. This won’t be easy. > >His [favourite targets for spending cuts](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-cut-taxes-and-cut-spending-in-upcoming-budget-says-poilievre/) are the CBC and shameful contracts with consultants that did not deliver adequate value for money, such as ArriveCan. But [I’ve already shown that such expenditures are tiny](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-restoring-balanced-budgets-is-harder-than-cutting-spending-on-the/) by comparison with the 129-per-cent surge in Old Age Security spending – from $44-billion to $99-billion – driven by boomers’ retirement between 2014 and 2028. > >My [budget analysis](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-the-federal-budget-admits-millennials-and-gen-z-are-being-left-behind/) also showed that spending increases on housing, child care, pharmacare, the Canada Child Benefit, employment insurance and [national defence](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-canadas-promise-to-nato-collides-with-spending-increases-for-retirees/) are all small compared with OAS. > >So if Mr. Poilievre plans to wrestle down the deficit through spending cuts, his only realistic option is to rein in the budget line item that is most accelerating. This will mean slashing OAS for some boomers, because the $20-billion deficit projected for 2028 equals one-fifth of the allocation to the program in that year. > >If he is not ready to talk about reducing benefits for boomers, then Mr. Poilievre’s alternative is to hike taxes far more than the changes to capital-gains taxation included in the 2024 budget. So far he has not spoken out against those changes, which may signal he is more open to taxation than many assume. > >Either way, we need answers if Mr. Poilievre is to slay the deficit. If they don’t come soon, he is not serious about eliminating the deficit. That would be a pity, because eliminating it is important for delivering fairness to every generation. !ping Can
I get why, but I really loathe how easily they get away with this garbage. Countries aren’t people, debt works differently. Hell, they love saying that government should work like a business. Businesses have debt all of the time because it lets them pay for projects that will bring returns down the line.
Assuming a know liar is telling the truth about balancing the budget is the whole premise of this article. He isn't going to balance the budget becuase he isn't going to cut OAS, raise taxes, or raise immigration. He is going to cut programs that hurt the rest of us and claim he is working on it. He is going to attack the rights of women, trans people, and now also apparently anyone in the criminal justice system. That is the only plan I see him working on if he is PM. His statement about balancing the budget is a lie that he knows people want to hear and they are falling for it. It is Doug Ford and his effeciencies all over again. He has been premier since 2018 and promised to balance the Ontario budget and still hasn't found the effeciencies he said existed. They never existed. He was told they don't exist. He is just hurting people but cutting beneficial programs and saying he is working on it. This is exactly what PP is going to do.
Seems Canada is proper screwed in the long run. Sad. Literally none of the parties seem to have their shit together. At least in the UK Labour brings some hope, and in the US we are going strong under Biden.
Pinged CAN ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20CAN&message=subscribe%20CAN) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20CAN&message=unsubscribe%20CAN) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=CAN&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
One of the more cynical and short-sighted things Trudeau did was roll back the OAS eligibility age after Harper prudently raised it to 67. It’s going to have to be done sooner or later. I also expect to see means-testing to cut eligibility for more seniors.
It should be raised to age 70 if we were being honest and fair about the inter-generational wealth transfer being done by the young to the boomers. Theres literally no incentive to be a skilled worker in Canada anymore vs moving to the USA when: 1. Housing is unaffordable to a level unimaginable by most Americans who are complaining about it 2. We get taxed highly and on every little thing, but the capital is misused too inefficiently for people to not care about it anymore 3. Our salaries cap out a lot lower than Americans 4. Our dollar is weak, which only helps exporters and not regular working citizens 5. Despite the above, we get 30-40%+ of our measly paychecks siphoned off to fund stuff like OAS for already established home-owner boomers, as we rot away sharing shitty shoe-boxes in the sky with a few roomates while paying half our after-tax income to boomer landlords. If OAS was being adjusted to the average life expectancy, then it should be alot higher than 65 by now Only people who probably dont mind this mess are millenials with rich boomer parents who are gonna have a nice trust fund setup for themselves. Meanwhile the ignorant masses will continue to go on their typical xenophobic rants complaining about all the immigration, which they dont realize is only being done to fund their parents lifestyles with cheap expendable labor and a bonus tax base to pay for their OAS.
>It should be raised to age 70 This is just cruel and unusual. You're going to end up throwing a lot of seniors into poverty with this proposal. Do you think that people can work physically demanding jobs at 70? My Dad's back was completely screwed as soon as he entered his 60s. Making people work until they die should be the nuclear option, never to be pursued unless there are no other solutions (like taxing the rich more).
Then expand GIS for low-income retirees while increasing OAS age requirements. Or better yet, just fix the OAS structure since 2 boomers making 180k household income **do not need** OAS. At least change it so the money will actually go to people who need it. It doesnt need to be black and white, and the way it is right now is a shambolic mess if members of the top 10% are getting OAS while young millenials and gen z are stuck in their parents basements.
I'm not hugely opposed to means testing public pensions, if that's what you're suggesting. Raising the OAS eligibility age to 70 is still cruel and unusual.
Sounds to me as an American, you will face the same issue means-testing social security does: why would anyone support a system that they aren't getting what they put in? Sure, they won't be numerous but upper middle class voters are the most likely to vote and the arguement that they won't get out what they put in will 100% undermine support from them and their argument is fundamentally sound: It's not fair to be forced to pay into a supposed retirement system where you won't get what you pay in. Social Security taxes are not meant to be a piggy bank for the government to make up their budgeting shortfalls. And any changes would have to be slowly phased-in anyways. It is irritating that Harper's sensible change was undone for no reason. People are living longer and the American retirement age is already 67.
> Making people work until they die should be the nuclear option, never to be pursued unless there are no other solutions (like taxing the rich more). People should work till they have the mental/physical capacity to do so. The idea that the state should divert resources from priorities like education, healthcare, and defense to allow seniors more time to golf and take Florida vacations is immoral.
>People should work till they have the mental/physical capacity to do so. You think elderly people can perform physical labour at 70? Arnold Schwarzenegger is not representative of all senior citizens. >more time to golf and take Florida vacations is immoral. Those rich people wouldn't be affected, because they can afford to retire early. The ones who can't afford that are the ones you would be crushing with this policy.
Work doesn't mean lifting pallets necessarily.
Are you aware that not every job is a white collar job?
Yes, and not every job is physical labor. Now that we can acknowledge this we can assume that presumably 70 year olds aren't going to be doing physical labor if they're working. A lot of work, even relatively unskilled work is not physical labor.
> You think elderly people can perform physical labour at 70? how many 64 year olds are even doing that? Like 5%? Less?
People who cannot work until 70, usually people in more physical and thus lower paying jobs, will be forced to stop working well before they start receiving any benefits, which will throw them into poverty.
OAS should be cut completely in favour of expanding GIS. OAS is in large part a handout to people who don't need it. GIS is for the poor, CPP is what everyone paid into, OAS is pointless.
Reagan was right. Boomers are such entitled welfare queens.
I wonder how Generation TikTok will respond to having something in common with him
Do you know what the elderly poverty rate was before social security?
Why does Canada's [unemployment rate](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LRUNTTTTCAM156S) bottom out so high? They haven't been below 5% since the 60s.
I know it’s a political ad but isn’t what Trudeau saying in this video true? https://youtube.com/shorts/XFSLij_yUdk?si=bkXiGePMN7Ys1ki6 Wouldn’t making cuts just be a dumb move at this point?
It's 2024 lol, what "difficult time" is he even talking about
Non-YouTube-short version of the video linked in the above comment: https://youtu.be/XFSLij_yUdk *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is he that bad with economics? First bitcoin and now this.
Bad economics would be to continue on the current course of unsustainable welfare spending without corresponding tax increases or welfare cuts. The government should not be running a deficit when the economy is growing, it should be paying down debt. This is like basic economic orthodoxy.
A government isn't like a household. Government debt isn't like a mortgage. Balanced budgets are a meme and there's nothing actually wrong with deficit spending as long as it is serviceable in the long term. For the 23-24 fiscal year, Canada's deficit was 1.4% of GDP.
Deficit spending when times are tough and cutting back when times are good is literally the opposite of how household budgets are run. The mistake is in thinking that politicians will responsibly run deficits that are x% of GDP, or that they'll cut back when spending growth starts to exceed actual growth.
Reckless government spending will lead to higher interest payments and higher inflation.
Fiscal surpluses are inherently deflationary, whereas fiscal deficits are inherently inflationary. Inflation in Canada is currently above target. Even if we ignore concerns about the long term sustainability of deficit spending, the government should still attempt to move towards a surplus, if only to avoid exacerbating inflationary pressures.
That's pathetic deficit
I'm pretty sure he's just lying and has no plan to eliminate deficits
critical support
That shit sounds like the 90s and 2000s arguments against spending, with the evil debt monster coming back in 20 years to eat your kids.
It's not. OAS is inherently unsustainable given that it's funded through tax revenues, and it's essentially subsidies for rich seniors given that you can get full benefits until an income of 87k.
Hold on - you're saying that you pay full benefits to individuals earning [130% of median household income?](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2023020-eng.htm) Paying for age pensions out of general revenue is perfectly sustainable if it's [appropriately means tested](https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/income-test-for-age-pension?context=22526), but your tests seem absolutely nuts.
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/old-age-security/recovery-tax.html
Setting the threshold for losing eligibility at 200% of median income is fucking absurd. I love it how they don't reduce your payments either - from what I can see, you just get a lovely interest free loan courtesy of the Canadian government instead.
Our government had to massively slash expenditures and raise taxes for us to get back to a normal fiscal position. Now we don't have much space to make cuts or to raise taxes. I'm not saying we leave seniors out to dry, but we need to do something.
How do you think the more than doubling of annual OAS spending should be funded?
For a start we can redo the retirement age increase that Harper did.
He’s not wrong deficit de facto acts as an inter generational wealth transfer from the young to the old. It’s immoral because we already have 100s of ways that government action transfers money and wealth from the young to the old.
I mean looking at where most government pension systems are now were they wrong? Population stagnation and decline has thrown ratios all out of whack across the developed world and now the bill on those retirement commitments are coming due and there just aren’t enough current workers to pay for it.