Non-poor 65+ collecting GIS - really?

[Temet Nosce]

Further there are clawbacks with OAS that comes into play...but way too much to get into. My dad is *bleep* off because he has paid huge taxes whole life and he is over the income threshold so won't receive OAS. Some may say he doesn't need it....but he has paid in, worked 6 days a week his entire life, and saved his money etc. why shouldn't he.
GIS no I don't believe he should receive (and neither does he) but OAS yes IMO he should....

[Temet Nosce]

Is this factual? And how about you?

If one has lived all one's life in Canada as a Canadian citizen, and has saved a billion dollars, owns furs, diamonds, race horses and a trillion dollar mansion (regardless of how obtained - hard work, intelligence, clever risking of capital, inheritance or good luck) - as long as one has no *income* (strictly speaking, as in no interest-bearing deposits, rental income, wages etc) one qualifies at 65 years of age for Guaranteed Income Supplement? You can have a zillion dollars in your chequing account, own a yacht and ten houses that you allow your relatives to live in for free - and it makes no difference to qualifying for old age welfare.

If so, this is astounding and appalling in my opinion. I don't blame anyone for using it if it is offered, but if this is true, we need radical change in the system, IMHO. Otherwise there could be wholesale misuse.

Even if there is an upper limit of assets, is it at a reasonable level to keep the GIS for those truly in need? And where would you place that level financially speaking? But most important, where is it now in reality?

It just struck me now that I should make money like crazy my last years before 65, because at one day after 65 it could make a *huge* difference what my passive income is. Nobody taught me this strategy in school. Or in university! And I am not sure whether I should be jubilant or disgusted by the retirement planning reality of Canada in 2017.

So, person A takes an equivalent income and saves, invests wisely is not eligible for GIS while Buddy pi**ed away all his income on crap but is eligible? How you going to make that work? You own a house, car paid for, no bills and you get nothing because you were prudent with your income and spent it as you got it.
Maybe we should revamp the income tax system so that people who spend are penalized more than those who do not?
If you use your income during your working career to buy things rather than invest it in RRSP's you end up paying more income tax (throughout your working career) than the guy who bought RRSP's to help reduce their income. So, in effect one guy pays his taxes as he goes, the saver pays his taxes at the end when all the money he poured into RRSP's is finally taxed as he withdraws it. I am not sure why the guy who did not invest should be penalized when he made a decision that was lawful.
He is entitled to that meager GIS like anyone else. He paid his taxes.

I see your point when looking at OAS but GIS I would hope is reserved for low income seniors who genuinely are in need. BUT....wait for it.... now that the NDP is in some might see less incentive to be in high earning positions (work overtime, sacrifice and be out of town etc.) to subsidize others BEYOND what is reasonable. I hear this from many already looking at making adjustments...

[Grandan]

[

I see your point when looking at OAS but GIS I would hope is reserved for low income seniors who genuinely are in need. BUT....wait for it.... now that the NDP is in some might see less incentive to be in high earning positions (work overtime, sacrifice and be out of town etc.) to subsidize others BEYOND what is reasonable. I hear this from many already looking at making adjustments...

I think that it is unfair to penalize the folks who followed all the rules and end up getting left out in the cold because they were more prudent with their life's income than those who did not and the bad guy gets the prize!
As it stands, your OAS is clawed back with the more income you have, what's wrong with that?

[Smurf]

Temet Nosce wrote:

Further there are clawbacks with OAS that comes into play...but way too much to get into. My dad is *bleep* off because he has paid huge taxes whole life and he is over the income threshold so won't receive OAS. Some may say he doesn't need it....but he has paid in, worked 6 days a week his entire life, and saved his money etc. why shouldn't he.
GIS no I don't believe he should receive (and neither does he) but OAS yes IMO he should....

Is there a threshold income for OAS. I can't find it.

2. Eligibility
Your employment history is not a factor in determining eligibility: you can receive the Old Age Security (OAS) pension even if you have never worked or are still working.

If you are living in Canada, you must:

be 65 years old or older;
be a Canadian citizen or a legal resident at the time we approve your OAS pension application; and
have resided in Canada for at least 10 years since the age of 18.
If you are living outside Canada, you must:

be 65 years old or older;
have been a Canadian citizen or a legal resident of Canada on the day before you left Canada; and
have resided in Canada for at least 20 years since the age of 18.
If neither of the above scenarios applies to you, you may still qualify for an OAS pension, a pension from another country, or from both countries if you have:

lived in one of the countries with which Canada has established a social security agreement; or
contributed to the social security system of one of the countries with which Canada has established a social security agreement.
For more information, see Lived or living outside Canada.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benef ... ility.html

[GordonH]

As I've said earlier, there is very simple solution it's called a Means Test. Those who really need GIS gets it... those who don't need it, does not get it. Just that simple

[Silverstarqueen]

As I've said earlier, there is very simple solution it's called a Means Test. Those who really need GIS gets it... those who don't need it, does not get it. Just that simple

Again, though if they "really need it" because they didn't make much effort to work or save most of their adult life, why should some other person, who has worked hard and saved for their retirement, be funding the slacker? Sure there are people who were truly disabled most of their adult life and therefore might need assistance later in life. But except for those, I don't know why those who didn't bother to make much of an effort, or frittered away what they had, should have their lifestyle decisions funded by hard workers who have already paid their taxes,and sacrificed to set something aside for later life, and will continue to pay consumptive taxes in their retirement.

[GordonH]

As I've said earlier, there is very simple solution it's called a Means Test. Those who really need GIS gets it... those who don't need it, does not get it. Just that simple

Again, though if they "really need it" because they didn't make much effort to work or save most of their adult life, why should some other person, who has worked hard and saved for their retirement, be funding the slacker? Sure there are people who were truly disabled most of their adult life and therefore might need assistance later in life. But except for those, I don't know why those who didn't bother to make much of an effort, or frittered away what they had, should have their lifestyle decisions funded by hard workers who have already paid their taxes,and sacrificed to set something aside for later life, and will continue to pay consumptive taxes in their retirement.

Okay, I hear ya. So why not then remove GIS completely, with the exception of those with disabilities.

Added: of course look back at what happened in 2008, many people that was about to retire found out they lost their retirement nest egg. Many worked there as es off, now its gone

[Silverstarqueen]

In 2008 lost their nest egg? If you mean by poor investments, are we now guaranteeing people's stock market choices? I was invested too, my "nest egg" is relatively intact, because of the types of investment choices I made. I certainly don't expect to shore up someone else's riskier choices.
Many people have experienced increase value in their real estate investment (even if only their principle home). The housing market could conceivably dip or "tank" in the near future, or not. Are we going to shore up those hapless souls who saw their housing values soar for years, but then lost most of those gains when the market drops? We have to decide as a society if we want to ensure everyone for their choices as adults. Now things they had no control over, such as being struck by some disability, I think many people would say those people should be supported, at least at some basic level. Should they be supported to the point of living as well as any one else?

[GordonH]

Hey I'm not bi ing & complaining about who receiving GIS, just suggesting options.
When I retire I won't be needing GIS so I will not be applying for it.

[whitecandle]

Is there a threshold income for OAS. I can't find it.

Maximum annual income to receive the OAS pension - $121,279 (individual income)

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benef ... .html#tbl1

The maximum annual income is the income level at which you cannot receive the Old Age Security (OAS) pension or benefits. See what income and deductions are considered in the maximum annual income allowed to be eligible for the OAS pension (see the related information on the Canada Revenue Agency's Web site) and for the OAS benefits.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benef ... ments.html

[Temet Nosce]

Temet Nosce wrote:

Further there are clawbacks with OAS that comes into play...but way too much to get into. My dad is *bleep* off because he has paid huge taxes whole life and he is over the income threshold so won't receive OAS. Some may say he doesn't need it....but he has paid in, worked 6 days a week his entire life, and saved his money etc. why shouldn't he.
GIS no I don't believe he should receive (and neither does he) but OAS yes IMO he should....

Is there a threshold income for OAS. I can't find it.

2. Eligibility
Your employment history is not a factor in determining eligibility: you can receive the Old Age Security (OAS) pension even if you have never worked or are still working.

If you are living in Canada, you must:

be 65 years old or older;
be a Canadian citizen or a legal resident at the time we approve your OAS pension application; and
have resided in Canada for at least 10 years since the age of 18.
If you are living outside Canada, you must:

be 65 years old or older;
have been a Canadian citizen or a legal resident of Canada on the day before you left Canada; and
have resided in Canada for at least 20 years since the age of 18.
If neither of the above scenarios applies to you, you may still qualify for an OAS pension, a pension from another country, or from both countries if you have:

lived in one of the countries with which Canada has established a social security agreement; or
contributed to the social security system of one of the countries with which Canada has established a social security agreement.
For more information, see Lived or living outside Canada.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benef ... ility.html

yes there is:
Regardless of your marital status
OAS $583.74 MAX INCOME $121,279 (individual income)

Oops just saw someone already answered.

[Temet Nosce]

[

I see your point when looking at OAS but GIS I would hope is reserved for low income seniors who genuinely are in need. BUT....wait for it.... now that the NDP is in some might see less incentive to be in high earning positions (work overtime, sacrifice and be out of town etc.) to subsidize others BEYOND what is reasonable. I hear this from many already looking at making adjustments...

I think that it is unfair to penalize the folks who followed all the rules and end up getting left out in the cold because they were more prudent with their life's income than those who did not and the bad guy gets the prize!
As it stands, your OAS is clawed back with the more income you have, what's wrong with that?

I see your point....it can be frustrating for those who have worked hard and are responsible with their money....I get it.

[d0nb]

Is this factual? And how about you?

If one has lived all one's life in Canada as a Canadian citizen, and has saved a billion dollars, owns furs, diamonds, race horses and a trillion dollar mansion (regardless of how obtained - hard work, intelligence, clever risking of capital, inheritance or good luck) - as long as one has no *income* (strictly speaking, as in no interest-bearing deposits, rental income, wages etc) one qualifies at 65 years of age for Guaranteed Income Supplement? You can have a zillion dollars in your chequing account, own a yacht and ten houses that you allow your relatives to live in for free - and it makes no difference to qualifying for old age welfare.

If so, this is astounding and appalling in my opinion. I don't blame anyone for using it if it is offered, but if this is true, we need radical change in the system, IMHO. Otherwise there could be wholesale misuse.

Even if there is an upper limit of assets, is it at a reasonable level to keep the GIS for those truly in need? And where would you place that level financially speaking? But most important, where is it now in reality?

It just struck me now that I should make money like crazy my last years before 65, because at one day after 65 it could make a *huge* difference what my passive income is. Nobody taught me this strategy in school. Or in university! And I am not sure whether I should be jubilant or disgusted by the retirement planning reality of Canada in 2017.

I wonder how many people are willing to sacrifice the lifestyle they worked all their lives to attain just to keep their income low enough to qualify for a few bucks from the GIS.

Nevertheless, if anyone finds a way to pay maintenance, utilities and property taxes on ten houses, maintain and fuel a yacht and supply their relatives and themselves with the necessities of life on a taxable income low enough to qualify for a government supplement, I hope they share the secret with the rest of us.


Of course, governments can impose means testing for entitlements like GIS, OAS, disability, health care and such, but voters show little enthusiasm for having to reduce themselves to poverty, or near-poverty in order to qualify for government assistance.

[Bsuds]

I doubt very much that the OP can find 1 case of this happening even if it's possible.

Trolling at it's finest.