For years (back in the 1960′s) everyone paid a special 3% OAS tax to provide for OAS payments to seniors before the Canada Pension Plan existed. That 3% tax is now in hidden our tax rate. Why should I also pay a special tax which takes 100% of my OAS. I paid my 3% taxes for over 40 years and I am now over 65 and still working. This is not fair to double tax people who want to continue to contribute.

Why not tax 100% of everyone’s income from the Federal Government over $104,000 like civil servants and MP’s salaries, pensions etc. Those funds could be used to help seniors. That would be just a ridiculous.

How about simply adding 0.1% tax to the existing tax rates if we need more money rather than taxation based on age discrimination.

That is what the MP’s want – us seniors to fight about this tax and what level it gets paid at rather than to address the options to fix the problem.

It is not right to have seniors at the poverty level and it is not right to have age based special taxes. Just raise the overall tax rate by a very minor amount. I feel robbed after working and paying a special Old Age Security tax for over 40 years.

Think about this … with dividends grossed up 45% you can reach the threshold for clawbacks at about $45,000! A senior at $45k – still a fairly modest income – pays almost 50% in tax and clawbacks! We can hit our maximum tax rate at $45K! Disgusting!

Why do we feel it is wrong, immoral, or criminal to be financially better off?

I’ve often heard the misguided arguement that a high income earner who makes an RSP contribution gets a better deal than someone of more modest means; ie a $10,000 contribution saves them $5,000 in taxes whereas the less fortunate individual might only save $3,000.

The ONLY reason one can save more is because they are in a higher tax bracket!! How is that an advantage? If you really believe a higher tax rate is an advantage then why not drop the tax rate to 10% … then they would only save $1,000 for the RSP contribution.

Another myth reporters continue to propogate is the claim that the government gives that taxpayer $5,000! They don’t! They only allow the taxpayer to keep a bit more of his OWN money, and only if he sets aside money to care for his future wellbeing.

Often reporters also interview someone on welfare who claims the government is taking money from them to give to these fat cats! I feel sorry for these individuals, but it is wrong to to portray the guy whose taxes were perhaps reduced 2k as a bad guy – even though he still pays 100k in taxes? How is it fair to portray the individual on welfare as supporting the fat cat when the exact opposite is true; his taxes are supporting them and many others!

Oftentimes the individual is responsible for their own lot in life. Maybe they didn’t want to work too hard, or stick it out at the job, or dropped out of school. I also recognize that frequently their lot in life was beyond their control.

But my point is we all seem to willing to jump on someone who has done nothing wrong … just because they can afford a better car, nicer home, eat out often etc.

Unfortunately, if hamburg costs $10 a pound, and you don’t have any money for whatever, don’t make the grocer out to be a bad guy.

Thank you for your opinion. My argument is simply that OAS should be for those who need the moneyto make ends meet.

I do feel we should have programs in place to ensure seniors do not live in poverty and GIS fills that gap. But I fail to see how anyone needs to have social assistance earning anything over $35,000 a year.

Also, If they leave the country,they should be cut off!