Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lets Debate OAS Based On Fact Not Perception
Lets Debate OAS Based On Fact Not Perception
ca
One needs to ask then if this indicates that the OAS system is unsustainable. Are we f acing a demographic avalanche or a glacier? Secondly, raising the eligibility age f or OAS is regressive legislation. It is well known that wealthy Canadians live longer than poorer Canadians. Look at a blue-collar worker with less than high school education who retires at age 65. T hat persons lif e expectancy could easily be around 10 years. If you raise the age of eligibility f or OAS f rom 65 to 67, you remove 20% of that persons expected benef its. A wealthy Canadian, on the other hand, could just as easily be looking at a lif e expectancy of 20 years. T hus, moving this persons age of eligibility up by the same two years is a 10% reduction in their benef its. T hus, we see that two key questions need to be addressed in the upcoming debate. First, is raising the age of eligibility f or OAS really necessary or is the system sustainable as is? Second, how does one justif y a public policy shif t that is so clearly regressive in its impact? Let the f act-based debate begin. Robert L. Brown is an expert advisor with EvidenceNetwork.ca and a Fellow with the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. He was Professor of Actuarial Science at the University of Waterloo for 39 years and a past president of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries.