[Admiral Beez]

Well, there is no trend of that ending - the currently plans by *everyone* (esp. Alberta and Sask, and Ontario want a piece) is resource extraction.

Nothing wrong with resource extraction (including forestry and agriculture), provided it's sold to a diversified market, where no one or two customers hold on our cards. I would not be surprised if Canadians of the 2050s are secretly thanking Trump for pushing us away from the single market dependence of the postwar era. Unless we screw it all up and return to the US teat the moment a Canadian-friendly Administration returns to the White House.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Nothing wrong with resource extraction (including forestry and agriculture), provided it's sold to a diversified market, where no one or two customers hold on our cards. I would not be surprised if Canadians of the 2050s are secretly thanking Trump for pushing us away from the single market dependence of the postwar era. Unless we screw it all up and return to the US teat the moment a Canadian-friendly Administration returns to the White House.

Actually there is - you do not want an economy that is based on resource extraction - especially since it has a tendency to snuff out economic diversification. There is very little value-added in the process.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

An article by Robyn Urback with a take that @kEiThZ will be able to get behind; she broadly advocates taking away OAS from households earning over 100k.

I'm more than happy to endorse that take.

Equally she endorses some mix of reinvesting a portion of the estimated 7B in annual savings in supporting low-income seniors (enhanced GIS) and/or reducing the deficit or raising the National Child benefit for low income families.

100% agree.

Opinion: Canada needs to rein in spending. How about we stop handing out billions to wealthy seniors?

Tightening Old Age Security eligibility is a necessary move in this economic environment

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[narduch]

Robyn Urback, one of the worst columnists in the country.

No thanks

 

[PinkLucy]

For those who aren’t aware, OAS starts getting clawed back at around $97000 and is eliminated at just over $151000 per individual. That would mean the current household amount is just over $300000.

(Sorry @Northern Light ), I’m posting on the fly and don’t have the exact numbers to hand.

 

[Northern Light]

Robyn Urback, one of the worst columnists in the country.

No thanks

Debate the idea, not the person.

Please tell the room why you feel households with greater than $100,000 in income should be subsidized by the government while poor seniors and kids go hungry.

 

[Richard White]

Debate the idea, not the person.

Please tell the room why you feel households with greater than $100,000 in income should be subsidized by the government while poor seniors and kids go hungry.

Allow me to play devils advocate here.

What if someone makes over $100k annually but has to pay spousal support, debt, etc. That could bring their tangible income to well below $100 grand.

The point I am making is that a person's circumstances need to be taken into account. If someone is 66 years old and has car payments, an ex-spouse and a mortgage.. they may be making $110 grand on paper but a fair chunk of that is going everywhere but to them.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Allow me to play devils advocate here.

What if someone makes over $100k annually but has to pay spousal support, debt, etc. That could bring their tangible income to well below $100 grand.

The point I am making is that a person's circumstances need to be taken into account. If someone is 66 years old and has car payments, an ex-spouse and a mortgage.. they may be making $110 grand on paper but a fair chunk of that is going everywhere but to them.

Actually, no. You don't get a different income tax rate, etc just because you have other "obligations". The issue here is - what is the policy goal of the OAS?

AoD

 

[zang]

Actually, no. You don't get a different income tax rate, etc just because you have other "obligations". The issue here is - what is the policy goal of the OAS?

AoD

Instead of means testing however, we could just tax that (and higher) brackets more to make up for it.

Means testing seems fair on paper, until governments decide it's an easy, passive avenue to austerity, just by refusing to update numbers to match inflation.

I'm pro-UBI for everyone, and every single citizen should get it, whether they need it or not. But it more than makes sense to tax those who don't need it higher to cover what they might gain from it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Actually there is - you do not want an economy that is based on resource extraction - especially since it has a tendency to snuff out economic diversification. There is very little value-added in the process.

AoD

I didn't mean resource extraction in exclusion to manufactured or value added goods. There are lots of developed countries that do both, notably the USA and China, but also Norway, which in addition to large resource extraction, has advanced and domestically-owned shipbuilding, maritime engineering, and renewable-energy technology sectors. Sweden is a similar example, with a large iron ore and timber extraction economy, but also with strong domestically-owned manufacturing, notably Volvo Group (not to be confused with China-owned Volvo cars), Ericsson, Electrolux, and IKEA - all Swedish owned firms that manufacture both domestically and internationally. If we can get Canada to become a big Sweden I think we'd all be happy.

 

[Northern Light]

Allow me to play devils advocate here.

What if someone makes over $100k annually but has to pay spousal support, debt, etc. That could bring their tangible income to well below $100 grand.

The point I am making is that a person's circumstances need to be taken into account. If someone is 66 years old and has car payments, an ex-spouse and a mortgage.. they may be making $110 grand on paper but a fair chunk of that is going everywhere but to them.

That could also apply to someone earning 1/3 as much, who needs a food bank just to get by..

I would much rather take a bit off the top and send it to those with far greater need.

 

[narduch]

Debate the idea, not the person.

Please tell the room why you feel households with greater than $100,000 in income should be subsidized by the government while poor seniors and kids go hungry.

Robyn Urback is still a hack. You can defend her garbage articles all you want.

As for the topic at hand, how about the fact that 100k doesn't go as far as it used to thanks to inflation.

 

[lenaitch]

Carney and Ford over at Darlington this AM on energy news...

4 SMRs (~1200MW) to be built by OPG at Darlington, first in service by end of 2030 (so far on budget/time).

Edit: I'll add minister Lecce is over in Nova Scotia for an annoucement on nuclear (SMR) in Atlantic Canada...
or Baker
Edit 2: also sounds like the Wesleyville (near Port Hope) site may get a large nuclear plant...

I think that is great news, not only domestically but in terms of potential export market.

However, some folks (not on here) need a reality check. They see 'small' and 'modular' and leap to something the size of a seacan that can be plunked down In Iqaluit or Fort Severn to displace diesel. I've read nothing that suggests the technology is de-scalable to that extent.

 

[picard102]

Robyn Urback is still a hack. You can defend her garbage articles all you want.

As for the topic at hand, how about the fact that 100k doesn't go as far as it used to thanks to inflation.

100k is very much still in the comfortable range for living in Ontario.

 

[afransen]

I kind of question how small and modular these SMRs are. I think the intent with the technology is to have more of a centralized assembly line with very little work needed to be done in the field at the deployment site. These reactors are still quite large. Standardization is still a good thing, which is partly why France was so successful in deploying nuclear.