Es ist Zeit, die Altersvorsorge zu reformieren – und ein vernichtender Wirtschaftsprüferbericht bestätigt dies

>[nopaywall](https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-its-time-to-reform-old-age-security-and-a-scathing-auditors-report/)

>…
Together, these policies are working relatively well to reduce seniors’ poverty levels. According to Canada’s [official measure](https://web.archive.org/web/20241224050128mp_/https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110013501), 6 per cent of seniors are poor, compared with 10 per cent of children and 11 per cent of people 18 to 64.

>But when Ottawa is spending $81-billion on OAS this year, and billions more on [tax shelters](https://web.archive.org/web/20241224050128mp_/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-ottawa-should-preserve-funding-for-oas-by-eliminating-outdated-tax/) for retirees, there is absolutely no reason for any senior to be poor.

>My [last column](https://web.archive.org/web/20241224050128mp_/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-affluent-retirees-dont-need-subsidies-from-younger-taxpayers/) helps make this point. Retired couples with six-figure household incomes will often receive more than $20,000 from CPP and another $19,000 from OAS. Their receipt of CPP is perfectly reasonable, because [governments adapted that program decades ago](https://web.archive.org/web/20241224050128mp_/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-eby-ford-and-trudeau-are-paying-for-government-failures-decades-ago/), so Canadians prepay into CPP in proportion to what they will receive in retirement.

>But OAS has never been a prepay system. It’s a government subsidy paid to whomever is eligible, which 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.

>Since the CPP was designed to replace retirement income regardless of one’s affluence, OAS no longer needs to deliver taxpayer subsidies for rich and poor retirees alike.

Finally, someone talking about the real problem we have in this country: entitled boomers.

Thr cut off for OAS is ridiculous. Drop it way down. Help those that actually need it.