‘We don’t need it’: Seniors call for reduced Old Age Security payments;
Generation Squeeze proposal would reduce OAS payments to households making more than $100,000 in retirement income
‘We don’t need it’: Seniors call for reduced Old Age Security payments;
Generation Squeeze proposal would reduce OAS payments to households making more than $100,000 in retirement income
* A group of comfortable retirees are calling on Ottawa to shrink their Old Age Security (OAS) payments, saying they don’t need the money and it would be better spent on other priorities.
* “It makes no sense to me that I receive Old Age Security,” said Harry Grossmith, one of 11 retirees featured [in a new video](https://archive.ph/o/7kaCC/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjUbNEUCrcw) produced by advocacy group Generation Squeeze. “I’m not poor, I’m not struggling and yet I receive a bonus every month just for simply being a senior.”
* OAS is currently Canada’s costliest federal program, eating up roughly one in every six dollars of federal spending. This amounted to a total of $85.5 billion in 2025-26 and is expected to exceed $100 billion annually by the end of the decade.
jpsreddit85 on
I’m more and more certain I won’t get a penny from the fund I’m forced to pay into the entire of my working life.
Odd_Pumpkin1466 on
$100,000 in this economy isn’t the same as it was 10 years ago. 🙃
Nervous_Wafer7733 on
The funny part is, is that the boomers would be like, “Amazing proposal! BUT let’s make this rule start applying to the younger generation!” 😂
odoc_ on
Maybe $150,000 is a better threshold
Floatella on
Whose going to buy $35 Sysco steak sandwiches on a Tuesday without this? /s
Zathrasb4 on
Most other benefits are limited based on family income (GST, CCB). OAS is the only one off the top of my head that is not.
mech9t5 on
$100k household for clawback is a good threshold assuming house is paid off. My planned expenses are $40k plus fun money.
Even if you had a mortgage, that might add $20-30k. You’d still have roughly $10-15k for other stuff after taxes.
As long as the $100k is indexed.
FredArtGetson on
Makes sense to me. I am nearing 65 and not anywhere near going to be making 100k/year in retirement
wrongdaytoquitdrugs on
If you pay into it, you should get it. Period. Ritchie Ritch can opt out, but blanket shafting people is a slippery slope.
Additional-Tale-1069 on
I’d probably cut it for those making more than $70k to 80k currently. Any changes would need to be phased I think to give people time to adjust to the changes.
Correct-Shine-1692 on
Boomers being generous to the younger generation as if!
typec4st on
Give it 10 more years, they’ll scrap this as millennials retire. The irony.
random20190826 on
I think OAS aims to solve the problem of retirement in situations of job (in)security during a person’s career. The problem with CPP is that if you have substantial gaps in your work history (especially if it is due to unemployment), your benefits are severely reduced.
I am 30 and was fired from a job that paid ~$46, 190 a year. Under the previous rules, CPP would have given me ~$11, 547 a year; which would increase to ~$15, 397 when I turn 65 in 2060 due to the CPP2 expansion, as implemented by Justin Trudeau’s government. But this calculation is based on my ability to maintain stable employment.
I am now looking for work. Of course, if I find another job that pays more, I will pay more in CPP contributions and get more when I retire. I am confident that, short of severe health problems, I have no problem with living on ~$15, 000 a year. But at the margins, there is a massive difference between living on $15, 000 a year and $23, 000 a year.
Also, long stretches of unemployment destroy a person’s ability to save for retirement or for anything else. EI pays 55% of what you used to make, for at most 15 months (and that is only under the temporary measures in response to the tariffs). Of course, one can sue their former employer for severance if it is not provided (like mine didn’t). But lawsuits take months or a year even in small claims court, and potentially multiple years in superior court. In the meantime, EI is the only income available. While I can live on 55% of my previous income, I am aware that many people can’t. Dipping into savings is the part that destroys retirement plans.
Digitking003 on
For added context, just over ~$113k (as of 2023) income puts you in the top 10% of income in Canada.
heereewegooo on
Will never happen. The boomers didn’t have to make any sacrifices in quality of life why start now.
CobblePots95 on
Can I get a “hell yeah brother”?
szchz on
OAS was created to take seniors out of poverty when it was instituted by “the greatest generation” currently seniors have the lowest rate of poverty out of all demographics. Young people have the highest rate of poverty.
It was the greatest generation that instituted old age security out of care for seniors, the fact that young people are the most vulnerable in our society right now and boomers largely don’t care is reflective of their greed. At least the ones that don’t recognize this.
Elway044 on
OAS is clawed back if you make over $95k, 15 cents per every dollar over. So what’s the issue?
Ask_DontTell on
i really don’t get the sense of entitlement out there these days, even from the right. it’s been pretty clear for a long time that with Canada’s demographics, no one should be counting on OAS for their retirement.
Mission-Departure-47 on
There is currently OAS clawback starting at around 95K yearly income. Maybe drop that to 50K yearly income per person.
Additional-Tale-1069 on
Median income for a full time, full year worker is currently around $70k a year. Someone making well over that income has a reasonable income. There is no need for the government/tax payers to subsidize their income.
szchz on
Something that gets under reported is that you only need to live in Canada for 10 years to receive old age security.
Not even work here.
That is a huge gap in the systems. If you are working, struggling to pay bills, trying to pay for child care etc, this is incredibly disappointing. I don’t know how something like this could be allowed.
CaptainKwirk on
Hey Generation Squeeze. Great sentiment. But I say take the money and donate it to a food bank or other charity. In all likelihood your money will do more good there than in the hands of the government.
karmasang on
I think this proposal makes sense if handled properly. OAS should mainly support seniors who actually need it, not households earning over $100,000 in retirement income. A gradual and transparent reduction would be fair and allow people to plan ahead. If it helps low-income seniors and eases pressure on younger generations, it’s a discussion worth having.
Ancient_Wisdom_Yall on
More and more reasons to invest in a TFSA instead of RRSPs
green_tory on
The strongest argument I’ve seen for why OAS is flat out generational inequity is the difference between the amounts received when on OAS versus CCB. We pay people fairly large amounts for the privilege of being old, even the wealthy ones, and yet we’re stingy as hell for those that have young children.
NotAtAllExciting on
Rage bait opinion. One group, a sample of 11 people. Some boomers made great money but not all. OAS does have a cap/clawback.
portstrix on
>”Seniors” call
No – more like a far-left special interest group.
Love when these people on the far left claim they speak for everyone in the seniors demographic.
odanhammer on
My parents worked their butts off and struggled.
Finally at retirement , they deserve to enjoy the time.
Only recently have they had to start making choices of cutting back.
Yet these are people that define cutting back to not taking two cruises a year, only one and no more buying thousand dollar paintings.
My comparison to them is I skip three days of eating a week , because I can’t afford food. I have been selling everything I own , from collectables , to items from my childhood.
The choice between keeping my dead wife’s wedding ring , or eating, has become my reality.
We as a country to re-evaluate how we use our money and who should get help.
As it can no longer go on that rich keep getting richer.
Regardless of age
RadiantAge4266 on
We need YAS
Young age security 🤣🤣
TheOnlyDen on
They just need to adjust the clawback to start at 60k and end by 80k
32 Comments
**Paywall bypass:** [https://archive.ph/7kaCC](https://archive.ph/7kaCC)
* A group of comfortable retirees are calling on Ottawa to shrink their Old Age Security (OAS) payments, saying they don’t need the money and it would be better spent on other priorities.
* “It makes no sense to me that I receive Old Age Security,” said Harry Grossmith, one of 11 retirees featured [in a new video](https://archive.ph/o/7kaCC/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjUbNEUCrcw) produced by advocacy group Generation Squeeze. “I’m not poor, I’m not struggling and yet I receive a bonus every month just for simply being a senior.”
* OAS is currently Canada’s costliest federal program, eating up roughly one in every six dollars of federal spending. This amounted to a total of $85.5 billion in 2025-26 and is expected to exceed $100 billion annually by the end of the decade.
I’m more and more certain I won’t get a penny from the fund I’m forced to pay into the entire of my working life.
$100,000 in this economy isn’t the same as it was 10 years ago. 🙃
The funny part is, is that the boomers would be like, “Amazing proposal! BUT let’s make this rule start applying to the younger generation!” 😂
Maybe $150,000 is a better threshold
Whose going to buy $35 Sysco steak sandwiches on a Tuesday without this? /s
Most other benefits are limited based on family income (GST, CCB). OAS is the only one off the top of my head that is not.
$100k household for clawback is a good threshold assuming house is paid off. My planned expenses are $40k plus fun money.
Even if you had a mortgage, that might add $20-30k. You’d still have roughly $10-15k for other stuff after taxes.
As long as the $100k is indexed.
Makes sense to me. I am nearing 65 and not anywhere near going to be making 100k/year in retirement
If you pay into it, you should get it. Period. Ritchie Ritch can opt out, but blanket shafting people is a slippery slope.
I’d probably cut it for those making more than $70k to 80k currently. Any changes would need to be phased I think to give people time to adjust to the changes.
Boomers being generous to the younger generation as if!
Give it 10 more years, they’ll scrap this as millennials retire. The irony.
I think OAS aims to solve the problem of retirement in situations of job (in)security during a person’s career. The problem with CPP is that if you have substantial gaps in your work history (especially if it is due to unemployment), your benefits are severely reduced.
I am 30 and was fired from a job that paid ~$46, 190 a year. Under the previous rules, CPP would have given me ~$11, 547 a year; which would increase to ~$15, 397 when I turn 65 in 2060 due to the CPP2 expansion, as implemented by Justin Trudeau’s government. But this calculation is based on my ability to maintain stable employment.
I am now looking for work. Of course, if I find another job that pays more, I will pay more in CPP contributions and get more when I retire. I am confident that, short of severe health problems, I have no problem with living on ~$15, 000 a year. But at the margins, there is a massive difference between living on $15, 000 a year and $23, 000 a year.
Also, long stretches of unemployment destroy a person’s ability to save for retirement or for anything else. EI pays 55% of what you used to make, for at most 15 months (and that is only under the temporary measures in response to the tariffs). Of course, one can sue their former employer for severance if it is not provided (like mine didn’t). But lawsuits take months or a year even in small claims court, and potentially multiple years in superior court. In the meantime, EI is the only income available. While I can live on 55% of my previous income, I am aware that many people can’t. Dipping into savings is the part that destroys retirement plans.
For added context, just over ~$113k (as of 2023) income puts you in the top 10% of income in Canada.
Will never happen. The boomers didn’t have to make any sacrifices in quality of life why start now.
Can I get a “hell yeah brother”?
OAS was created to take seniors out of poverty when it was instituted by “the greatest generation” currently seniors have the lowest rate of poverty out of all demographics. Young people have the highest rate of poverty.
It was the greatest generation that instituted old age security out of care for seniors, the fact that young people are the most vulnerable in our society right now and boomers largely don’t care is reflective of their greed. At least the ones that don’t recognize this.
OAS is clawed back if you make over $95k, 15 cents per every dollar over. So what’s the issue?
i really don’t get the sense of entitlement out there these days, even from the right. it’s been pretty clear for a long time that with Canada’s demographics, no one should be counting on OAS for their retirement.
There is currently OAS clawback starting at around 95K yearly income. Maybe drop that to 50K yearly income per person.
Median income for a full time, full year worker is currently around $70k a year. Someone making well over that income has a reasonable income. There is no need for the government/tax payers to subsidize their income.
Something that gets under reported is that you only need to live in Canada for 10 years to receive old age security.
Not even work here.
That is a huge gap in the systems. If you are working, struggling to pay bills, trying to pay for child care etc, this is incredibly disappointing. I don’t know how something like this could be allowed.
Hey Generation Squeeze. Great sentiment. But I say take the money and donate it to a food bank or other charity. In all likelihood your money will do more good there than in the hands of the government.
I think this proposal makes sense if handled properly. OAS should mainly support seniors who actually need it, not households earning over $100,000 in retirement income. A gradual and transparent reduction would be fair and allow people to plan ahead. If it helps low-income seniors and eases pressure on younger generations, it’s a discussion worth having.
More and more reasons to invest in a TFSA instead of RRSPs
The strongest argument I’ve seen for why OAS is flat out generational inequity is the difference between the amounts received when on OAS versus CCB. We pay people fairly large amounts for the privilege of being old, even the wealthy ones, and yet we’re stingy as hell for those that have young children.
Rage bait opinion. One group, a sample of 11 people. Some boomers made great money but not all. OAS does have a cap/clawback.
>”Seniors” call
No – more like a far-left special interest group.
Love when these people on the far left claim they speak for everyone in the seniors demographic.
My parents worked their butts off and struggled.
Finally at retirement , they deserve to enjoy the time.
Only recently have they had to start making choices of cutting back.
Yet these are people that define cutting back to not taking two cruises a year, only one and no more buying thousand dollar paintings.
My comparison to them is I skip three days of eating a week , because I can’t afford food. I have been selling everything I own , from collectables , to items from my childhood.
The choice between keeping my dead wife’s wedding ring , or eating, has become my reality.
We as a country to re-evaluate how we use our money and who should get help.
As it can no longer go on that rich keep getting richer.
Regardless of age
We need YAS
Young age security 🤣🤣
They just need to adjust the clawback to start at 60k and end by 80k