Trashy's World Rotating Header Image

Yup, there are more than…

… a few Grit and Dipper lips smacking at the prospect of running against Harper on the issue of raising the retirement age to 67.

While some of Harper’s holy pronouncements in Davos are basically no-brainers (e.g., reforming the immigration system), bringing up the spectre of changing retirement rules mid-game is NOT going to be a winner for the Cons… nor do I think it  is a necessary can of worms to unscrew.

Generations – mine included – of currently living and working Canadians have made life decisions with the assumption that, at the age of 65, there would be a government allotment waiting for them that would make it possible to leave work and enjoy what was left of their years.

And Harper wants to change this.

I’m not going to super-overanalyze the whys or why-nots in this post…need to research the issue some more. But I will confidently say that opening up the retirement age question may be The Robot’s ONE BIG MISTAKE. Has he not looked at a current population pyramid.

Not let’s see what the Opposition does with this…


Be Sociable, Share!


  1. BobbyOrr4 says:

    I’ve heard a 20 to 30 year phase in, which would be reasonable. I’m not sure when 65 yrs was picked, but I am sure that life expectancy has advanced at least two years since then. This is the kind of longer term planning our gov’t should be doing.

    1. trashee says:

      Hiya Terry! Are you sure you want to read the ramblings of one of we hated progressives? 🙂
      I don’t disagree that the system should be re-examined, nothing wrong with opening the books on old assumptions. But it was a) the way the message was delivered by Harpo (in another country as sort of a throw away remark), b) the stunning lack of detail that has left the Cons open to attack… tactical mistake that is unlike Harper, and c) the fact that this was not even a sideline issue during the election… if OAS is such a mess, then why didn’t the Harperites campaign on it???
      Hey – you gonna golf at the reunion?

  2. RunnertheFirst says:

    John its rather simplistic to assume legislation to enact raising the retirement age eligibility for OAS to 67 would be a line drawn in the sand. Should that ever happen, I would put it in the realm of unlikely, the phase-in period would allow for all those life decisions you mention to be modified in order to accommodate those approaching retirement.

    1. trashee says:

      Agreed, Allan. Yet they haven’t enunciated these details.

      This came completely out of the blue (uncharacteristic of Harper) and without any of the qualifiers about the hows, when’s and who’s. Very dangerous to throw this out carte blanche… and like I said, I’m not gong to go too much into the rightness or wrongness of such a drastic change until I have more context. But the lack of context at the outset is rather surprising.

      1. RunnertheFirst says:

        Its still an idea under development. The lack of detail does not surprise me. When a new issue is floated details are normally left completely out of any and all announcements until the idea has had time to percolate. OAS sustainability is an issue that needs attention. Is raising the eligibility age the only answer? I would say no since it only delays the peak. I’ve read pundits claiming OAS costs will start to drop somewhere in the mid 2020’s as the back side of the circle of life takes hold.

        1. trashee says:

          Raise the GST by 1% and channel the extra billions to the OAS… poof! No more issue!
          But that’ll never happen…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: