this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
37 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9672 readers
855 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otters_raft@lemmy.ca
37
Carney’s housing fix needs a dividend for millennials and Gen Z (archive.is)
submitted 1 day ago by sbv@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I think Kershaw is trolling in this op-ed, but it's hard to tell. He's saying that the $14 billion planned increase to OAS for seniors will subsidize many people who are already well off. So he suggests younger Canadians (who don't get to participate in the housing market) should get a similar amount:

Millennials and Gen Z deserve a greater share of the $1.5-trillion windfall generated by rising home values since boomers were young adults.

A $1,000 annual payment to every adult aged 18 to 39 would be a start. The simplest way to deliver this compensation would be through a refundable tax credit, claimed when young people file their annual returns. Governments seeking more visible credit might directly deposit $250 every three months into young people’s bank accounts, clearly labelled as a housing wealth dividend.

I know $1,000 doesn’t stretch far in today’s housing market. It may only cover a few weeks of rent or mortgage payments. But over 21 years, that same annual payment adds up to real money that can help with costs.

Of course, there are less spendy alternatives:

Options include eliminating outdated Age and Pension Income tax shelters, which could pay for half the cost. The other half could come from beginning the Old Age Security clawback at $100,000 of household income, rather than continuing to provide the full $18,000 subsidy to retired couples with $180,000 in income.

I think Kershaw is using the $1,000 per year "you were born too young to get a house" tax rebate as an illustration of the amount of cash going to retirees. But maybe he isn't.

Original: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-carneys-housing-fix-needs-a-dividend-for-millennials-and-gen-z/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wampus@lemmy.ca 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

Silly question, but can someone explain how things like OAS and other 'age' defined benefits fit with the Charter's protection against discrimination due to age? Likewise tax benefits given to married folks, as the charter supposedly protects against discrimination there?

I mean, it's listed as a protected characteristic just like race. So wouldn't something like saying "Let's give old retired people a bunch of money" be similar in terms of violated charter rights, as saying "Let's give white people a bunch of money"? ie.... wrong and against supposedly 'protected' charter rights? Even how CPP tiers the amounts you get depending on if you take it at 60, 65, or 70 seems like it'd run counter to charter rights... ?

*just an edit to clarify protection against discrimination based on marital status is seemingly in the human rights act, not charter, but still a protected area...

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 6 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Are we really getting to the point of attacking OAS now? Seriously? Like, I know everyone loves to hate on the boomers, but most of them didn't strike it rich, many live in homes that are old and not well maintained, have failing bodies, are being squeezed out of labour jobs, etc. Having a tiny, taxable income stream at a time where society is turning against you isn't some crazy benefit.

Attack the rich, not the old.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Boomers will stop getting hate when they either share their wealth or retire so we can work jobs that pay a living wage.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago

I know everyone loves to hate on the boomers, but most of them didn’t strike it rich, many live in homes that are old and not well maintained, have failing bodies, are being squeezed out of labour jobs, etc. Having a tiny, taxable income stream at a time where society is turning against you isn’t some crazy benefit.

Kershaw and (I suspect) u/wampus are talking about the intersection of rich and old. Someone who is making ~140k/year (or 250ish as a couple) doesn't need a top-up from the feds, regardless of their age. Kershaw's other op-eds have proposed lowering the OAS clawbacks for the wealthy and using that amount to increase payments to poor seniors.

For example:

Refining the OAS clawback for households with incomes of more than $100,000 would be transformative. It would free up $36-billion in federal spending over the next five years.

About $12-billion could be added to the Guaranteed Income Supplement to deliver an extra $5,000 a year to the 469,000 seniors who currently fall below Canada’s official poverty measure. This would virtually eliminate poverty among seniors ... . For those who remain near the poverty line, another $4-billion could be added to the GIS to enhance their incomes too.

The remaining $20-billion could be reinvested to double the increases for housing and postsecondary education in the 2024 federal budget, add 50 per cent to child care and cut the deficit by billions.

[–] wampus@lemmy.ca 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Programs like OAS are given to the rich, because they're old. Questioning the legitimacy of 'old' and/or 'married' as being qualifiers for targeted aid, and instead implying that benefits should be given to 'poor people' no matter their age or marital status as per the charter's tenants, fits with your rebuttal. A rebuttal which didn't address the questions.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 hours ago

Then instead of taking money away from poor old people the gov't should be means-testing the rich old people.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 hours ago

You pay into the system for 40+ years, you get a retirement benefit. If you take it early you are stretching your earned pension over more years, rather than have new tax payers fund your early retirement you just get less per year. And if you still have income you still get your retirement pension because you contributed. The GIS is meant to split people by poverty level and rich pensioners, adjust GIS if you are concerned not OAS.