Should affluent retirees still receive government benefits?

I think people who have preparred and in many cases did without during their life time to ensure they had sufficient funds to retire on shouldn't be penalized for those who didn't.
If the government is going to claw back or cancel the OAS of people who have reached a level of income deemed too much by the government but they have paid in to it over the years the government should pay back all contributers with interest and let them re-invest their monies so they may continue to enjoy the fruits of their labour.
The Cdn government if serious about retirement and pensions should increase the various incentives and create new avenues to allow people at lower income levels to save for their future. Our various levels of governments seem to think they can contiune to spend year after year without any ramifications. Unfortunately it's the people who end up paying for their mistakes and foolish spending of monies on projects that can be postponed into the future or no done at all. All levels of government must reduce their spending and reduce taxes so the ordinary wage earner can save for their future. Having caps on RRSPs and little to no other avenues of tax free saving towards your future will only continue this hardship. Maybe the government should take a look at giving a tax break to lower and middle class family wage earners by increasing their tax incentive to maybe 100% of their RRSP contribution. Most low and many middle class families are not able to contribute enough money each year to ensure their retirement at 65.
Say what you want, but Canada is a very expensive place to live.

Here we go again,another Conservitive govt wanting to reduce universality,remember the last crooked PM(Mulroney) doing that. It is bad enough to lose bridgeing,just because the govt did not want you to have too much money.Of course our pensions pale in comparison to theirs.So now we are going to have to pay (in Flahertys mind) for those persons that chose not to save for theri retirement.Sounds like the old story of the hare and the tortoise to me.Maybe not spending your money on cigarettes and beer would have helped.We never bought anything unless we could pay for it.We always kept our vehicle 8-10 years and only lived in a modest house. Now that we are retired Mr. Flaherty wants us to pay for people who wasted money,lived in expensive houses and drove fast cars. I don't think so.

I am so sick and tired of people like Kelly that think the only reason people don't have enough money is because they didn't manage their money well enough. Yes, there are absolutely those for whom that is true, but there are many more that did the very best they could and it wasn't quite enough. From family emerganicies that drain resources to losses brought on by the recession to employers reducing or eliminating pensions, there are plenty of valid reasons why people don't have enough.

To all of those that think those don't have enough deserve what little they get, I truly hope that Fate appreciates your sentiment and rewards your charitable consideration.

Well Kelly, you are very fortunate if you own a house. I lost mine when my husband died suddenly at the age of 52. Don't get me wrong, we owned the house and worked damned hard for everything we had. However, I was unable to return to my office job after my husband died and I had to sell our house. It has been a constant struggle to keep things going. You see in this great province of ours (Ontario) no one sees the value of a person over the age of 55--no matter what their experience brings to the job. We are throw-aways. So now all my savings are gone, all my RRSPs are gone and I work a physically demanding job just to pay my rent and bills. I will be eligible for retirement in 18 months. Will I retire? I CAN'T afford to. So keep your righteous indignation and your comments to yourself. If you want someone to bash try our government retirees--4 years and you get a great pension--how about that????

When the government started talking about pension reform a few years back I knew this question would come up.
My wife and I, were not buying boats, campers, big pickups and other expensive toys in our early years like many of our friends were. We, along with our children still had a great life together, camping trips, visits to friends and relatives, if we puchased something even if is was on credit it was purchased after other needs were looked after like retirement savings.
If the government of the day does decide to claw back OAS because some of us saved instead of wasting money then we should be compensated. Perhaps a lower rate of taxation on our rsp withdrawels. Compensation could easily come in some indirect form that would not be a burden to government coffers or our planned (over the past 25 years) retirement.
For the next five years of work my savings are going where the government can not see it. Under the mattress so to speak. No wonder there is an underground economy, we are being forced into it.

Lynda and James, I don't think Kelly or for that matter my comment is targeting people who have suffered a tough break in life. For every person like yoursel Lynda there are probably thousands who just dont get it. It's not personel.

Talking about being sick and tired James.Me too, of people like you .Constantly thinking that the Govt or the people of Canada who made good hard career choices or worked 2 or more jobs when 1 wasn't enough,should somehow bear any kind of responsibility for people like you.

Everyday I see younger people driving big fancy cars and tricked out pickups that they can barely make payments on.They smoke,drink and party large and live in houses that are too big and fancy for the wages they earn.

The " want it all now generation" and the feeling of entitlement that they espose surely is a receipe for downstream disaster.

If you want more you have to work longer and harder in jobs that you may dislike and a lot of personal sacrifices have to be made.So buckle up buttercup and get to making further efforts.

Regarding the charity of all this, by far the greatest amount of financial charity comes from more succesful people , not those that dont have 2 cents to rub together

The best thing is to be grateful for what we do have and to remember to be charitable.

wake up people the vast majority of jobs in society are low paying ie minmumwage ones within a few dollars an hour of that there are more retail sales and resturant workers etc they account for more jobs than trades nurses doctors and lawyers and factory workers we dont all work for the govt or gm etc so how does one save when one is constantly using all money they earn soley to survive day to day if taking from the rich at retiremant is all we can do than so be it we woirked dam hard to get there in the first place

Lots of people worked really hard and saved their money and tried to do the best they could....I think that these people should be looked after. We all know that how hard a person works is not equal to their salary. Most CEO's are just figureheads and do little.....and don't even get me started on sports figures' salaries

Once again, those of us who make valid attempts to save and plan for their retirement bare the brunt of incompetent politicians. If government officials are truly concerned with the state of the nation, maybe they should opt for less lucrative pension plans. But I don't that ever happening.......

Base the OAS on your lifetime income. This way it doesn't take into account how much you saved so those that weren't able to find high paying jobs but were able to save can still receive their full benefits while those that couldn't work because of other circumstances can also receive their OAS. People that managed to make a lot of money would then be forced to pay their own retirement forcing them to save more. I can't see any problem with this scenario but how about any of you?

I am slightly confused. There is a difference between CPP and OAS. No one "pays" into OAS, it is paid out of tax revenues and it was designed to help lower income earners during their retirement. The average senior received $6000.00 last yr. from OAS (note number is approx). And it is my understanding, however I could be wrong, that the debate is wether or not they should continue to pay out any amount to someone who has a higher income. Effectively taking away $2000/year from someone bringing in $80000/year. It would not affect your CPP. Everyone will receive CPP regardless of "supposed" need. You pay into CPP and you receive CPP. OAS is a social program funded by taxes.......So should everyone receive OAS?

Unbelievable that anyone would think that having your own money virtually stolen from you by government is akin to being "charitable". I am near retirement myself, and all my life I have planned my retirement at least partly based on what government pension etc I would receive. After all, that's where my money was going, and the government told us all that they were investing and growing that money to provide us with partial retirement. Under NO circumstances should any government be able to come along and change the rules 30 years AFTER the fact. If they want to change the rules, they have only 2 choices..1.. refund every nickell that was paid in plus interest...OR 2. have those rule changes only apply to people who are starting out now and therefore, can make their plans based on new rules, limits etc! Anything else is fraud and theft of OUR funds!

I believed everyone should received the same amount and no claw-back as it is not fair to those that saved. When I planned for my retirement, I was counting on OAS and took that into consideration. Now that I am retired and not getting the full amount that is not fair. This I considered a penalty for saving for retirement. If I knew they were going to claw it back, I would have saved less.

as OAS is considered as income and taxed, so the the very rich are already paying back in higher taxes which is in some cases higher then 50% of the OAS received. Because of this, claw-back is really double taxation and penalized those that all willing to save for retirement.

to be fair to all, every retiree should get the same amount. If others need more to supplement their income, modify the welfare program to take care of that.

An easy solution to this delema, which raises it's ugly head periodicaly, is to put all retirees on the same plan as MPs and other's in govt. What's good for one should be good for all!!!!

My financial situation looked good until eight years ago when my husband died from cancer at age 49. Four years later I fought cancer and so far I'm a survivor. These circumstances of "life" cannot be controlled but kicks all plans into the gutter.

...and in BC... the minimum wage has remained at a scant $8/hour for the LAST TEN YEARS ! In todays dollars this is just below $10/hour and still below the poverty lin in major BC cities. If a person could get full time employment. MOst major retail employers will not allow their employees to work full time hours and will not co-operate with those same employees to work another job so they can get some more working hours at another job. Those of you making six figures or more....S.T.F.U. and PAY UP or start voting for the NDP.

Didn't the Fed Conservatives try this before and get smacked at the polls???

Their attempts to end universal access for many programs is notoriously well-known.

Maybe the Liberal-NDP alliance is an idea whose time has come, eh.

I appreciate the comments from Angel, OAC was for lower income earners, thank goodness for some help. It was not something we paid in to. We paid into CPP and get very little back, I would have liked to bank that money, I am sure the return would be better. Life happens and even though we tried to prepare for retirement, the cost of living increases have left us very short. The next generation is really going to have to consider costs of living. I know they say its what the market will bear, but it has become ridiculous. The next generation is going to have an even tougher time. The recession will balance some things, but life is constantly more expensive - will our grandchildren even be able to afford houses?