this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
41 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9493 readers
882 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.

  2. Election Interference / Misinformation

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

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter
mp3
otters_raft
41
Canada’s aging population: The unspoken ballot box issue (theconversation.com)
submitted 3 days ago by otters_raft to c/canada
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
  • Sunil Johal | Professor in Public Policy and Society, University of Toronto
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] grey_maniac 37 points 3 days ago

"vouchers could be made available to help Canadians pay for costs such as long-term care or home care services"

This was how the conservative provincial government tried to sneak in privatization of long term care and home and community care in my province. (Source: I was one of the consultants brought in to assess the viability of the plan, and my contract was abruptly cancelled after I explicitly pointed out this was what they were doing)

Fortunately, COVID derailed the program, and a new government came in before it could be restarted. But, as a result, I am extra cautious and thorough anytime analysts mention voucher programs.

[–] grey_maniac 26 points 3 days ago (3 children)

We should be making sure older people know Poilievre will try to take away their CPP and OAS. And privatize as much of their health care as he can.

[–] kent_eh 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm more concerned about what a PP conservative government would take away from my kids.

The fact that his party still refuses to acknowledge the reality of climate change is a huge problem.

But far from the only one.

The party's ongoing support for reversing support for LGBT folks, their leaning into criminal justice methods that have been provenrepeatedly not to work, their embracing of trickle down economic policies... there is a lot to not like about the party and its leader.

[–] Dearche 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Argue all those points. Each one hits a different group, so cater your message to the group you're talking to. Parents to the withdrawal of public school and daycare funding, climate change to young voters, the privatization of healthcare and how private healthcare is several times more expensive wherever public healthcare doesn't exist to older people and those with illnesses like diabetes, the fact that they hate non-standard heteros for LGBT.

The Cons only exist for hypercapitalists, so simply tell people the thing that they're worried about the most and how the Cons will actively hurt their greatest interest. They even hate resource workers, because despite Alberta being the richest province in the country, the people are some of the poorest because all the money gets taken away from the workers and put into the pockets of billionaires due to having some of the lowest tax rates in the country.

[–] kent_eh 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Each one hits a different group,

All of the points I mention are among the ones that matter to me and my family personally.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

And dental.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

OAS is in desperate need of reform:

presently includes individuals with incomes over $140,000, and couples who have nearly $300,000.

This level of subsidy for affluent retirees is a perverse outcome of the ESDC failure to adapt OAS in response to other pension policy, and the rapid increase in housing wealth enjoyed by many seniors. We should now make up for lost time, because we live in an era when some people have real affordability concerns.

There are a bunch of people getting money they don't need, and a bunch of people who need money aren't getting enough.

Putting it in terms of "keep" vs "take away" shuts down conversation about a significant problem in Canada's federal government.

[–] prodigalsorcerer 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why is that a problem? OAS is taxable income. It's essentially what a basic income program should look like. If the problem is that rich people exist, tax reform is the issue you should be looking at.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The link does a pretty good job describing the issue.

[–] prodigalsorcerer 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It doesn't really though. The only problem it outlines is that it doesn't pay a living wage. It says nothing about why it's a problem that people with high incomes also get this (other than it's unfair). It then suggests making it more complicated (increasing overhead) so that poor people can get more.

But it's much simpler than that. Just pay everyone more. Make it an actual basic income at living wage, and adjust the tax brackets appropriately.

Then expand it to include everyone instead of just seniors.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

It says nothing about why it's a problem that people with high incomes also get this (other than it's unfair).

That's a pretty good reason. It's using the income of taxpayers to subsidize seniors with above average income. Yes, about half of that is clawed back, but it's a poor use of resources.

It then suggests making it more complicated (increasing overhead) so that poor people can get more.

Payouts are already scaled by income. Changing the scaling rates does not increase complexity, but it does improve fairness.

[–] grey_maniac 3 points 3 days ago

Step one: stop Poilievre getting into power; Step two: actually solve the problem. Failure at step one makes step two moot.