Article content

But polling results are highly sensitive to how questions are framed. Ask whether benefits should go to those who “need them most” and you’ll always get strong support. But that’s not the real question. The issue is whether Canada should further penalize individuals who spent decades saving for their retirement.

Article content

Some other details get glossed over, too. First, the current system already includes a meaningful clawback. For the current recovery period, OAS begins to be reduced at a 15 per cent rate for net income that exceeds $90,997 and is fully eliminated at $148,451 for seniors aged 65 to 74.

Article content

In other words, some seniors are already receiving reduced or no benefits. The $180,000 example cited by Generation Squeeze is not coincidental; they said the current clawback threshold (approximately $90,000 times two) is too high while offering little support for why $100,000 in total is better.

Article content

Second, $100,000 of income — particularly for a household — is not rich in much of Canada. For many retirees, that level of income reflects discipline and long-term planning, not excess. Many seniors also support children and grandchildren facing serious affordability challenges.

Article content

Article content

Third, OAS was never intended to be narrowly targeted, but to be broadly available. It includes clawbacks, but turning it into an ever more aggressive means-tested program would fundamentally change its nature while increasing effective tax rates on those who did exactly what public policy has long encouraged: save.

Article content

Fourth, the supposed billions in savings rely heavily on static assumptions. Behaviour changes will happen, income can be deferred, split or restructured, so serious policy changes need to account for that.

Article content

I am not opposed to sensible OAS reform. It is an incredibly expensive program and will continue to grow as Canada’s population ages. Measures to improve its fiscal sustainability should absolutely be considered.

Article content

There is precedent for thoughtful reform. Brian Mulroney government’s 1985 attempt to erode benefits through de-indexing was derailed by a fierce grassroots backlash. But it did implement clawbacks in 1989.

Article content

In the 2012 budget, Stephen Harper’s government proposed increasing the eligibility age from 65 to 67, but it was never implemented when the Liberals took office in 2015. Thoughtful reform should happen, but not through simplistic, redistribution-driven proposals built on questionable assumptions.

Article content

Article content

Broadly, this kind of thinking reflects a growing tendency to focus on how to extract more from those who are perceived to have enough rather than how to create an environment where more people can succeed.

Article content

Capital is remarkably agnostic. It goes where it is treated well and is welcome. The better approach for Canada is obvious, even if politically difficult: competitive tax policy, a strive for simplicity, stability and a genuine focus on growth. In other words, make people want to stay.

Article content

Putting up fences might keep Enzo in, but it doesn’t make him want to stay. Tax and economic policy should aim for the latter.

Article content

Kim Moody, FCPA, FCA, TEP, is the founder of Moodys Tax/Moodys Private Client, a former chair of the Canadian Tax Foundation, former chair of the Society of Estate Practitioners (Canada) and has held many other leadership positions in the Canadian tax community. He can be reached at kgcm@kimgcmoody.com and his LinkedIn profile is https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimgcmoody.

Article content

_____________________________________________________________

Article content

If you like this story, sign up for the FP Investor Newsletter.

Article content

_____________________________________________________________

Article content

Article content