Nothing like destroying the incentive to work hard and save for your own retirement…
So, what you are saying is that if I save lots of money for retirement and have a nice nest-egg – that is my net worth is a large positive number – that I will have to pay more in taxes so that those people who chose not to save money are not destitute? Exactly how is that fair? This sounds like the socialist version of the Grasshopper and the Ant…
Has Flaherty suddenly switched to the NDP???
4 comments
johndoe124 says:
11 June 2010 at 20:23 (UTC -7 )
As I’ve said elsewhere, when it comes to incrementalism, Harper’s Conservatives are going in the wrong direction.
Powell Lucas says:
11 June 2010 at 20:51 (UTC -7 )
That’s what we get when we keep voting communists into office.
old white guy says:
12 June 2010 at 8:24 (UTC -7 )
as the only living conservative in canada i say ditto lucas.
Cynical Bard says:
12 June 2010 at 22:28 (UTC -7 )
Well guys, its already here. If you saved enough for a comfortable retirement, you might already be in this group. If your post 65 income is high enough, you will be subject to a marginal tax rate of up to 100% on your OAS. you might have paid taxes to fund it for 40 years, but it really not the Universal Pension Plan we have heard about for many years. Just another welfare program, but Mulroney called it a “sacred trust”. Yeah, sure.
Now, like most other government programs, this equalization scheme seems to be a failure, so we need to pile more on top.
Some people think that:
“If a little bit is good, more is always better.”
But if you are a government regulator, the maxim seems to be:
” If a program or regulation fails, more of it will be better.”
To paraphrase the 7-Up ads:
“Never seen it! Never will.”