babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
Search | FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » On ODSP? turn 65 and your poorer.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: On ODSP? turn 65 and your poorer.
McCollum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 828

posted 26 October 2001 06:44 PM      Profile for McCollum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While I've been pushing to get a cost of living increase for those on Disability, a very scary topic kept rearing it's head...

What happens when I turn 65 and Ontario Disability cuts me off?
This I would also like to know. It seems to me we end up getting considerably less money in old age income.

I have to laugh each year when I get my tax papers back from the Federal Government letting me know how much I am allowed to put into an RRSP.

Ontario disability 1) doesn't give enough income to put anything into an RRSP.

2)If I do manage to have any money to contribute seems I will still end up losing some of my ODSP income...

How do we put something aside for retirement when there never is enough money?

This is a matter I would really like to hear input on. What do people do????
McCollum

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: McCollum ]


From: Hamilton | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 26 October 2001 07:08 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I certainly don't have an answers but I know I too worry. Every few years they send a letter with how much pension your entitled to at 65 and I think the last time I was entitled to .43 cents a month. Don't spend it all in one place eh! I thought about sending to someone in government and asking if this was what they thought all my years of motherhood and contributing to society were worth. I never did though because although they all talk a good game about the importance of families it really doesn't mean squat in reality. There's another worry too now in Ontario with everything being privatized that if you don't have a good nest egg and you don't have family that can care for you, you could possibly end up being warehoused with your barest needs being meet.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 October 2001 08:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think everyone my age and younger are dreaming if they think there is going to be a federal pension around when we get old enough to collect. By then, they'll have thoroughly indoctrinated everyone from my generation down that RRSP's are the only defence against age and infirmity, and that those who couldn't afford them (or maybe lost money on them if they didn't choose the right shark) deserve to starve.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 October 2001 08:58 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Self-fulfilling prophecy, ain't it?

Why do you think I occasionally go on my benders about boomers? Because they're creating a situation where they benefit while my generation has to do all the belt-tightening.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 26 October 2001 10:37 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is your disability? And you have a few years to go before 64. Maybe by then environmental conditions will change.
From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 26 October 2001 11:03 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Regrettably, once ODSP is cut off at age 65, recipients are dependent on whatever Old Age Security and Canada Pension will provide. In most circumstances, this will amount to a couple of hundred dollers less per month than the maximum ODSP. The only upside, and it's not much of a one, is that the wait for subsidized housing is a lot less for seniors, and some basic services become generally more available.

A person on ODSP in Toronto is allowed a maximum of $414 per month shelter allowance, with $516 per month to live on over that. (ie: If they only pay $200 rent, they only get that) Added to this are limited medical and dental coverage. Harris tried to reduce this to the same rate as welfare early in his first mandate, but was only prevented fron doing so by public outrage.

Added to this, ODSP has got to be one of the most difficult, impenetrable and downright arrogant beaurocracies to deal with. Over the last couple of years the wait for approval to ODSP has gone from 2-3 months to 10-12 months


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
McCollum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 828

posted 27 October 2001 06:56 PM      Profile for McCollum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oldgoat, did you know about the ODSP cost of living Petition?
A copy of it should be at your local MPP's office, but you'd be better off with a Lib, or NDP MPP. If you could, I'd like you to put a call into a few of your local MPP's just to ask them if they know about it and have it. Let me know who you called and what was said if anything. Just curious,McCollum.
PS. I am just guessing you live in Toronto...

And to the Dr. please explain yourself...I'm one of those "boomers" who got too sick too soon to retire..

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: McCollum ]

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: McCollum ]


From: Hamilton | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 27 October 2001 10:30 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
McCollum: I've seen it and signed it. I don't live in Toronto, but I work there. My local MPP is a Tory backbencher, and after our meeting about education policy some time ago, I don't think he likes me. There is ongoing lobbying and advocacy by numerous health care and related agencies, so your not alone out there.
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 October 2001 05:12 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Check it.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 October 2001 10:54 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dr C, we've gone toe to toe on this turf before, so I'll try to keep this short, but I still think class and sex are more important categories than "boomer" when we're thinking about what's happening and about to happen to seniors.

For example, older boomer women may have benefited from more accessible education in the 60s (what you call "the party"), but overwhelmingly that education did not lead to well-paying jobs with benefits. The neo-libs have a definite interest in convincing people that women my age all became snappy managers and professionals, but that's not what the numbers say -- most of us did not benefit from fair-employment provisions because we were too busy campaigning for them in the first place, you will recall. And the first of us are now only ten years away from having no income but government pensions.

Also, whatever their education and the promise of their entry-level jobs, most middle- and working-class people since the late 70s have been facing the ever-tightening "efficiency and productivity" squeeze. Huge numbers of people now approach 50 having lost, or knowing that they could lose, all the security they've built up through their working lives and that it's going to be near impossible for them to find new employment that will allow them to re-establish themselves. At the same time, they're bullied with propaganda about the RSP and investment saving they should be doing -- and if they find themselves in deep muck, well, they've been naughty spoiled boomers, haven't they?

The only people I know who are doing well on this turf are, well, the people who are doing well! the same ones who have always done well! Welcome to class analysis!


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
McCollum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 828

posted 28 October 2001 11:34 AM      Profile for McCollum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dr. C. I just finished reading the posts you directed me to. I must say I am surprised, up until now I thought you were some kind of brainiac,but the arguments posted in "earning" ring of generalizations that have no basis in the mass reality of that age group. I know I live through it, and was successful, and worked my ass off, and worked for myself, and put money aside to retire on. Glorious, I was trying harder, and slaving longer than my parents generation, who had steady jobs and could set money aside for a house, and retirement, even though they didn't earn much for their labour.

It all misses the point of an abrupt and sudden change of life. Unless you've been there you would have no idea of the truth behind insurance companies, and supplemental health policies, saving, RRSP's..etc. The list of events is far too long to go through here, but you never will get what you paid for, for several reasons, the largest one being no insurance co. is looking out for you!

They are just another way to make money off the backs of people who work. As I have said before those "boomers" that are now cruising the good life, had money in the first place that was allowed to stay in something long enough to pay out.... those boomers that are not doing very well, and will only do worse when they turn 65 are mostly those that had something suddenly interrupt their ability to steadily earn... all their savings and policies had to be eaten up to survive, and only when all security was gone, did they get Provincial Disability. The Feds have change some of the rules which meant those who may have missed the ability to work at some time over the prior six years, (like illness) and missed paying into CPP for a month or two were not eligible to go onto CPP if they were chronically ill...

This is a very serious problem that will only get worse...it does not make sense to take away anything that was put aside for age 65 and on...and have nothing set up to replace it...not to mention that the government steadfastly ignores inflation in any social support program, and continues to give tax breaks to those that can afford to go without them, in the hopes that business will then turn around and create more avenues of income... life is a repeated pattern, and in my experience you don't start to see it until your over 35 or 40 yrs...
McCollum

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: McCollum ]


From: Hamilton | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 October 2001 04:15 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The government didn't partially de-index pensions until the 1980s.

Brainiac I may be, but I am also a 20-something and dislike the fact that the same programs built up years before I was born are now being dismantled before I will be able to make use of them to cushion the rough paths of my life.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 October 2001 04:51 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pendulums swing.

You have time on your side.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 29 October 2001 02:15 AM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My age group didn't have RRSPs, government run home ownership plans or any of that stuff available now. We also earned a lot less. We had to find investments we could afford to set up a nestegg. As McCollum pointed out, you are expected to live off of any nestegg you have before you get any kind of assistance when you become disabled or unemployed for a long period, often having to give up ownership of a home if you were lucky enough to own one. Therefore, women, especially of my generation within 5 years or so of retirement, are a lot worse off than you believe. We mostly have nothing but CPP to depend on and if we have had to be on CPP disability, that has been depleted.

A lot of people seem to think that all of my age group are rich. Sorry, that's not true. We had fewer tax breaks, worked harder for lower pay, less chances of high-interest savings and no buffers or safe investments. Also, the women in my age group were the first to hold jobs after marriage in large numbers. Most of us had to for various reasons. If your income is used almost totally to raise your family, nothing much is left to invest in anything. We are also the ones who contributed the most to CPP and UI over the years. It's not like we didn't pay into what we're going to get.


From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 29 October 2001 02:24 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the income tax structure of the 1950s and 1960s were grafted onto today's society, something like 70% of the workforce would have a lower tax burden because of the way marginal tax rates were structured back then.

quote:
My age group didn't have RRSPs, government run home ownership plans or any of that stuff available now

The CMHC was invented in the 1960s, and as I recall there were benefits granted to WW2 veterans especially in the USA.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LotusGrrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1555

posted 29 October 2001 02:56 AM      Profile for LotusGrrrl        Edit/Delete Post
Well I think that by the time I retire, I am not going to count on OAS or CPP. I also think that there will be many people, particularly boomers, who will have to work past the age of 65.

I think there's a lot of people out there who think they can still maintain the same lifestyle they have prior to retiring but many are shocked when they find out how much of a cut it is to live on a pension.

Government pensions were created at a time when governments felt a social responsibility to ensure the elderly had at least enough money to buy the bare necessities. With all the government cut backs these days and the seemingly lack of social consciousness of our governmental leadership, it won't be long before OAS and CPP go the way of the dodo bird.


From: vancouver | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 29 October 2001 12:00 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
CMHC was and likely still is a method of receiving reasonable mortgage options. The point is you first had to have a large downpayment. Now, there is a method where you can have some of your income designated into a home ownership plan by the government. They are not the same thing. I worked for lawyers in real estate and used to know all the stipulations for getting a mortgage that made it harder for people to be able to buy homes. I know they've changed somewhat.

The main problem the young have with those of us almost at retirement age is that they believe the propoganda that all of us are rich. No so. Also, the living allowance on CPP is no higher than the below poverty incomes of those on forms of assistance. What is being pointed out on this thread and some of you are ignoring is that once all your gains have been taken away, you only have that monthly stipend to live on, no savings, no investments, no buffers, no nothing. Even if you got to keep your house, which many didn't, it has deteriorated because you have no way of paying for repairs and upkeep on what you have to live on. When CPP is the only income a person will have, it is very low and not sufficient to cover the basic needs. This applies to people who have worked all their lives at low paying jobs as well as those on welfare, disability and other forms of assistance.

I'm glad that you young people have the opportunity and in some cases the income to contribute to RRSPs but you have to understand that the amounts of money required to get any of us oldsters up to our needs on this program would take almost all of our income, leaving us far from having enough to live on. Any program that is going to benefit anyone must be entered into while young or it is beyond reach.

Edited to add: In case nobody has noticed, housing for seniors is being reduced drastically. Senior apartments are now open-rental and the rent-geared-to-income aspect is being looked at by our government for possible elimination. Also, senior drug benefits have been reduced and are being looked at for more reduction. Seniors care homes are being privatized and beds are being reduced. We may all end up homeless.

[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: Trisha ]


From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
McCollum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 828

posted 29 October 2001 08:05 PM      Profile for McCollum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Trish, from what I have learned lately in my city, CMHC isn't there anymore for help. It has been downloaded to the city, and my local politicians don't have any real ideas of what to do. Ont. government posted last march, I think under Housing, that they were allocating 26,mil for getting ready to do the task, like setting up offices, computers, training staff, and of all things... the ever important vacation pay... nothing for actual housing to be built...if I can find that page again I will post it.

All you under 30 take heed...lock it up in real estate now....and don't sell off. Land is the only thing you can bank on.
McCollum


From: Hamilton | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 29 October 2001 08:53 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's the others that need convincing, not me. When I worked in real estate law, CMHC wasn't much help to anyone but the wealthy anyway, except for access to more reasonable mortgage arrangements. It never was a funding organization for ordinary people. It's main benefit was to developers of tract housing.

I recently went through my early retirement review and believe me, I'm not looking forward to it financially. I lost all my assets while trying to get on disability, like most people. The breakup with the ex didn't help much either as we had to split everything. Also, back then women had no claim on an ex's pension.


From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
McCollum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 828

posted 29 October 2001 09:30 PM      Profile for McCollum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Trisha, well there is some good news out there. I just finished reading the Legislative debates. Tony Martin has finally managed to get the ODSP cost of living petition introduced as a bill.

Bill #118 is now under debate and the MPP's that are speaking for it need all the help they can get. Baird still likes to rant on that we are so much better off than the other provinces, he stills lables us a "welfare" recipients and totally ignores the fact that the U.S. has just raised their social programs by 2.6%, and Alberta last month allowed higher incomes for those that lived in more expensive cities....
Those of you out there that need this Bill to pass, get writing now...


From: Hamilton | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 30 October 2001 01:44 AM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good news indeed. Hooray, Hooray. Six months of work is paying off. Please provide me with links to some information I can pass on to the disabled groups I'm in contact with to get them going again.

We are proof that something can be done if enough people persist and cooperate and if nobody is afraid to pass the torch so it doesn't go out.

McCollum, I want to thank you personally for taking this further than I could get it. I also want to thank the others who ran with it as well. Our work isn't over but the first blockade has fallen. We are not voiceless.


From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 October 2001 09:24 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
McCollum and Trisha, congratulations! This is very good news; but as you say, just part of the way there. My MPP, Rosario Marchese, will already be onside -- but what else can we do? To whom else could we be writing? Are there any shaky Liberals who could use a little disingenuous encouragement?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 30 October 2001 03:44 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One thing would be to get other people writing to their MPPs as well and just about any government official you can think of, letters to the editors of newspapers, activate women's groups and clubs, men's groups and clubs, just everybody. Let the government know the people are behind this bill.
From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 31 October 2001 02:15 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
RED: I hear about that all of the time from my parents and inlaws. It's enough envy towards the babyboomers that I could bottle and sell it.

My inlaws left school in the 10th grade and enrolled in Manpower, all expenses PAID. He became a mechanic in 2 years, she a stenographer. He was making $15 an hour to START, she $13. Rent? $100 per MONTH.
Funny, she was able to save $10K in just a couple of years and put it away for future down payment on a home. She can't understand why I can't do the same.


I fished this out of the 6-buck-an-hour thread in the BC/Alberta/etc section.

Trisha, the simple fact is that even as late as the 1970s, it was far less likely that the average person got screwed as viciously or as wantonly as they do today.

The simple fact is that in 1955 it was possible for one wage-earner to own a home, two cars, have two or three kids and sock away on average about 8% of post-tax income away to put the kids through college or university.

I can't begin to make you understand the incredible resentment I feel towards a generation that sanctimoniously wags its collective finger in my generation's face and tries to guilt-trip us 20 and 30somethings into making the sacrifices they won't or can't make because they ran up the bill and didn't want to keep paying for it.

Why should I have to face being in a situation:

  • Where we accept 7% unemployment as "full employment" (what a travesty if there ever was one!) instead of 3% or 4%?
  • Where I may be called upon to pay into an EI system which I won't be able to benefit from, as only about 35% of working Canadians are eligible for it, at any given time in the 1990s?
  • Where I may be called upon to reduce my healthy expectations for government support in the event that I cannot make full use of my skills or my capabilities in the labor force? Why should my parents' generation have the cheap tuition and the non-existent ancillary fees and the robust economy, and mine shouldn't?

    WHAT POSSIBLE NAME CAN BE GIVEN TO THIS EXCEPT THE GREATEST INJUSTICE A GENERATION OF PARENTS CAN DO TO ITS CHILDREN?

    [ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: DrConway ]


    From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
  • Trisha
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 387

    posted 31 October 2001 03:57 AM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Dr.C, it's the government's fault, not ours. My parents could never afford a house or a car, I did but lost it when I couldn't work. I couldn't go to university because it just wasn't available for most people. There were no student loans, etc. Very few of my generation got that privilege. In fact, very few didn't have to leave school in Grade 10 to work. There were a lot fewer high paying jobs. There was a lot less social assistance and many, many poor. There was no widow's allowance, single parents couldn't get assistance. Only the Children's Aid and Orphanages helped children (if you can call what they did to us help). There was no recourse for abused people. Divorce was shameful. We didn't have it better. The world seems to be going back to all that. It was a little easier to be poor then, because people were better at helping each other.

    I don't see why people who have worked all their lives to pay into the pension plans and EI should not benefit from it. I also don't see why the government should not find a way to ensure that those paying into it now should not benefit from it when they need it. The government's mismanagement of these funds is what is to blame. What the hell did we do wrong except work all our lives at the jobs we could qualify for and push the government to make it better for your generation?


    From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
    DrConway
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 490

    posted 31 October 2001 04:29 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Brian Mulroney was 50 when he became PM. Chretien is nearing 70, and Paul Martin is 62 or 63.

    I leave the deductive chain of reasoning from those ages as an exercise for the reader.


    From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    skdadl
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 478

    posted 31 October 2001 05:48 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    DrC, one source of frustration with your rhetoric arises from its being at odds with the evidence you cite:


    quote:
    The simple fact is that in 1955 it was possible for one wage-earner to own a home, two cars, have two or three kids and sock away on average about 8% of post-tax income away to put the kids through college or university.

    Now, Dr C, as you will recall, in 1955 the oldest of the boomers, who seem to be your main targets when you're being purely rhetorical, the oldest of the boomers was nine.

    I am a few months too old to be a boomer, strictly speaking; I turned 21 in 1966; I was a woman facing open discrimination in pay for work equal (better, I would contend) to that of male colleagues (Sorry, skdadl, but he has a wife and children to support -- to which skdadl should have retorted: Gimme a raise, and I'll get a wife and children) until the early 1980s!!!

    My parents' generation certainly benefited from many of the programs you seem fixed on -- veterans' education bills, CMHC, etc -- but Dr C, these were people born at the time of WWI, who came of age in the Depression, who went off to fight WWII -- you are seriously conflicted in your evidential and rhetorical trains of logic.

    And from a human point of view: you tried visiting any of that "heroic" generation in their nursing homes right now? Oh, we respect them, yeah yeah yeah. Oh, we will honour them on 11 November, yeah yeah yeah. Go visit the warehouses we keep them in now. And then stick all that honour and respect where the sun don't shine.


    From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    Michelle
    Moderator
    Babbler # 560

    posted 31 October 2001 06:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    In fact, very few didn't have to leave school in Grade 10 to work. There were a lot fewer high paying jobs.

    Good point. My Dad (a boomer) told me that hardly anyone he knew went to post secondary education when he was in high school, and he didn't either.

    Of course, the difference is, now if you want to be anything more than a cashier, you have to do post secondary, whereas when he left high school, he could walk right into a government job that paid decently, and he could advance through the government and build up a great pension at the same time.

    Try to get a government job with a high school education now. Even my mother at the time was able to leave high school and get a job that at least paid the bills (because at the time women took things like typing and shorthand in school). Try to get hired even as a secretary with only a high school education now. The only reason I was able to do it was because I took a semester of night courses on computers, and luckily I learned to type by using BBS's when I was 16 or so.

    I'm not saying that boomers are living high off the hog on my generation's misery necessarily. I know that there was a large working class then as there is now. But I do think there were a lot more opportunities for boomers with less education to get decent, secure jobs than there is now for my generation to do the same.


    From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    DrConway
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 490

    posted 31 October 2001 11:42 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    My grandparents, incidentally, have not been warehoused anywhere. My grandfather died of complications arising from lung cancer one month after diagnosis while my grandmother died of natural causes a year later. That's my dad's side.

    On my mother's side, both grandparents are alive and well, and live together in the same house they've owned since World War 2.

    So don't give me that guff about warehousing the elderly.


    From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    skdadl
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 478

    posted 31 October 2001 11:49 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Because no one in your family is in a nursing home, you are not interested in the condition of nursing homes in this country???

    My mother's life is guff???


    From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    Victor Von Mediaboy
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 554

    posted 31 October 2001 12:10 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    I'm not saying that boomers are living high off the hog on my generation's misery necessarily. I know that there was a large working class then as there is now. But I do think there were a lot more opportunities for boomers with less education to get decent, secure jobs than there is now for my generation to do the same.

    The boomers paid their taxes, right? I think that any problems with the social safety net should be laid at the feet of those who may have mismanaged those tax dollars, and not at the taxpayers themselves. If the boomers paid their taxes, they have a right to the social services they require in their old age.


    (I can't believe I just defended boomers. Fuckin' hippie-sell-out freeloaders...)

    [ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: Kneel before MediaBoy ]


    From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    Trisha
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 387

    posted 31 October 2001 05:38 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    You got it Mediaboy. And lots of people are in seniors hospital-like homes with very little care, money or anything else. Yes, a lucky few have been healthy enough, wealthy enough and have families to help them to stay in their own homes. What is wrong with that? The rest are suffering. They all worked hard and paid their dues and deserve to at least be comfortable and cared for in their old age. They aren't looking to get rich by depriving anybody.

    We paid for what we're hoping to get in our retirement. All we're asking for is a roof over our heads, two good meals a day and not to be abused. Is that too much to ask?

    And I'd like to know what "bills" we supposedly ran up. Since I worked all my life until becomming disabled, I don't see how I ran up any.

    [ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: Trisha ]


    From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
    DrConway
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 490

    posted 31 October 2001 08:57 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    I'm talking about the operating deficits incurred prior to roughly the mid-1980s for which the sum total can be understood to represent a portion of the shortfall of revenues to expenditures as the cost of maintaining a robust economy, plus all the bells and whistles.

    The analogy may thus be drawn as so:

    If you and I live in the same house, but I have lived there for 10 years before you lived there, and I die 5 years afterwards, and I know you have to continue to live in it for many more years after that, is it not incumbent upon me to maintain the house in a livable condition?

    So for me to trash the house and saddle you with the expense of fixing it back up is analogous to this intergenerational transfer of expenses I'm talking about.

    skdadl: I was responding to what I perceived as your slight against me based on (what I thought) was your assumption that my grandparents live in nursing homes and that I never visit them at all.


    From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    Trisha
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 387

    posted 01 November 2001 02:03 AM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    So how did people working, paying taxes, buying houses at at least 10 times their original prices, buying cars and just about everything else at at least 10 times the prices 20 years before do what you claim?

    I'm sorry, I don't see where we, the people, did the damage you're talking about.


    From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
    clockwork
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 690

    posted 01 November 2001 06:47 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Sorry to interject here but I just found this.
    Look. Laugh. Carry on.

    From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    skdadl
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 478

    posted 01 November 2001 08:19 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    I was responding to what I perceived as your slight against me based on (what I thought) was your assumption that my grandparents live in nursing homes and that I never visit them at all.

    This just puzzled the hell out of me till I looked back. I mean, why would I assume any such thing? I see that I was using the colloquial "you" to mean people generally who pay lip service to seniors' role in building this country and then blithely ignore the reality of their lives now. In my experience, that's just about everybody who hasn't yet been touched personally by these things -- which is how our governments can get away with abusing seniors in fact while honouring them in public ceremonies, like 11 November.

    Do I hold you (in both senses) responsible for what your governments do and don't do? Or do we hold ourselves responsible -- I guess that's the better way to put the question.

    [ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: skdadl ]


    From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    McCollum
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 828

    posted 01 November 2001 11:36 AM      Profile for McCollum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Audra, I could not find any way to shut off the "notify when there is a response" option so would you please do that for me?

    I am just sick of all the mindless, childish chatter about who is to blame for this or that. It doesn't solve anything, it uses up what I consider to be valuable space for intellegent thoughts or a venue to help in rectifying or educating. Some people do not want to be educated. I was hoping for some helpful, or useful input, or to just make people aware of some issues they would not normally be made aware of. Just because a situation isn't happening to you doesn't mean it isn't real...

    For those of you out there that are interested in being helpful, Tony Martin needs your help in convincing the Tories that there is real suffering out there by the most vunerable of society...Baird is sticking to his "sources" that tell him different. I propose a letter writing campaign to his office telling him in straight hard cold facts what life is like when you don't have enough income to live on, and have no other choices but the government....and like letters to any or all other Tories.

    If there are some of you out there that are interested in helping me with the ODSP petition itself, contact me through the e-mail address on rabble.
    McCollum

    [ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: McCollum ]


    From: Hamilton | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
    DrConway
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 490

    posted 06 November 2001 02:34 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    While we're at it on the subject...

    The Rehabilitation of the 1950s and 1960s


    From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    WingNut
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 1292

    posted 06 November 2001 03:17 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    My understanding is that if you are a senior, receiving social security payments, and you have an RRSP, your social security payments will be deducted, dollar-for-dollar, from any income you derive from your RRSP.

    However, you can have as much cash in the bank as you like. So, a low income person, saving for retirement, would be better placing their cash in high yield savings accounts or GIC's or other type accounts, then investing in RRSP's.

    Politicians have never addressed this imbalance with regard to RRSP's. Primarily because there is no pressure to do so. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and there is no wheel sqeakier than our corporate community. And frankly, the problems of low income seniors do not make their priority list.

    [ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: WingNut ]


    From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
    Trisha
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 387

    posted 07 November 2001 01:26 AM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Anyone on any form of assistance is only allowed about $5,000 in savings or it is deducted from them. They are not allowed to have RRSPs, those have to be cashed in and used to support them before they receive assistance. In other words, the poor cannot save for retirement by government orders. Also, very few people earning minimum wage can even affort to put away $10 a month.
    From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
    skdadl
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 478

    posted 07 November 2001 08:24 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    Trisha and McCollum, sorry to lay an extra task on you, but I am always curious to hear your take on recent developments at Queen's Park, and there have been some this week. I notice, for instance, that the $100 Christmas prezzie for low-income families with children under 7 will not go to families on welfare; and I haven't been able to follow much progress on the disability bill through the mainstream press. Do you have news for us?
    From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    McCollum
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 828

    posted 07 November 2001 02:36 PM      Profile for McCollum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    For those who wish to know about govt. debates...
    For some background on the debates go to http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca

    Introduction of Bill 118 October 24/01

    INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
    ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT
    PROGRAM AMENDMENT ACT
    (FAIRNESS IN DISABILITY
    INCOME SUPPORT PAYMENTS), 2001 /

    Mr Martin moved first reading of the following bill:
    Bill 118, An Act to amend the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 to require annual cost-of-living adjustments to income support

    The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
    All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
    All those opposed will please say "nay."
    In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.
    The member for a short statement?

    Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Quite simply, this bill would tie ODSP benefits to the annual cost-of-living increase and adjust benefits every April 1 to reflect that rise. There has been no increase in support payments to people with disabilities since this government took power. At the same time, rents have soared, medications have been delisted, and people with disabilities are being forced to live in poverty. This bill would go a long way toward improving their lives. They could afford, if you can imagine, food and maybe even the medications they need.

    "(I disagree that it will go a long way - it asks for a percentage so small it really improves nothing. At 2.4% equals $26. more dollars pr month. When in the same press release he states we have lost a min of 9.% or $88 pr month in income due to cuts and inflation.)???
    See his web site.

    Go to November 5. for more info on claw-backs

    For the record, I do not support Mr Martins bill in it's present form, as it does not represent the ODSP petition, and does not bring income up to a livable level...
    Also, there are errors in the percentiles and years of frozen income. I have started a writing campaign to voice the needs of the disabled in regard to these important points.

    A bill that passes and does not resolve the problem is worse than no bill....it needs to be worked on to serve the proper end result.
    McCollum

    [ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: McCollum ]


    From: Hamilton | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
    DrConway
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 490

    posted 07 November 2001 04:13 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    So you'd cut off your nose to spite your face?

    Sheesh.


    From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

    All times are Pacific Time  

       Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
    Hop To:

    Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

    Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca