Proposed $2,000/month Canada Emergency Response Benefit | Page 5 | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

The notion that seniors should be raided for their income to pay the national debt is not going anywhere. Every politician in the country knows who votes.

In addition, it's a thinly veiled undermining of our health care system, turning it into some kind of user-pay system, but based on unreliable data about who dies. It's not actually mortality rates that determine costs, but morbidity rates. The people who use up health care funds are alive, not dead, and most survive.
So you should be looking at morbidity stats, at a minimum.
I heard on the news last night that 11% of the cases are health care workers, and almost none of them are senior - for starters. Another significant group work in groceries, and they're not that old either.

A significant number of victims die in long term care homes, and are not costing us any more money because those facilities do not have high-tech equipment or highly trained staff. To be blunt, hey are probably saving the system money because they are dying sooner than they otherwise would have. One of the reasons it spreads so readily in those homes is because they are understaffed, under-resourced, and overcrowded even when functioning optimally.

In my view, a better solution would be a substantial inheritance tax. Although it could be tweaked, I would suggest that all assets be lumped at death of second spouse and taxed at highest marginal rate in the same way that RIFs are. Adjustments could be made for surviving children under 25 in school and for disabled dependents. There would be some money left over for beneficiaries, just not as much.
The advantages are:
*Seniors are not penalized.
*The universality of the health care system is not compromised.
*The debt will get paid as it will yield a substantial amount, death being unavoidable and largely unrelated to the economy.
*Income of seniors who can no longer earn remains available to them to spend (stimulating the economy) or to use for their care - in both cases, spending helps the GDP.
*Minimal burden on the young. They don't have to pay the debt and can get on with living their lives and building their own wealth, not so dependent on mommy and daddy.
Issues: Some provisions would have to be worked out so that the law could not be circumvented by trusts and gifts etc. This plan would be somewhat unpopular among all ages, but I think it could be accepted because it doesn't take away anyone's income or the assets of any living person, and doesn't require the young to mortgage their futures.
Some will be unhappy to see their imagined inheritances reduced, but, in truth, you never know how much you will get until probate and it's best not to plan your life around it. You'll still get some, just not as much, if there are assets bequeathed to you. This helps re-set the field a bit in an era when the increasing gap between rich and poor is a harbinger of future instability which even many rich people realize is a problem.

FACT: The Federal Deficit is expected to reach about $185 Billion.
"Seniors" will have to pay their share, based on their taxable income, same as any other segment of the population.

canadian.100 said
FACT: The Federal Deficit is expected to reach about $185 Billion.
"Seniors" will have to pay their share, based on their taxable income, same as any other segment of the population.  

This statistic looks scarier than it is.
185B divided by approx 36M Cdns is about $5100 each.
If you used my proposal, you might assume that , allowing for two spouses, some single people, and dependents, it could be about $10,000 per qualifying death.
Obviously these deaths are spread over a long period of time.
But if you institute the inheritance tax to last just until the debt is paid, then I think it would be covered relatively quickly. (Not sure of death rate or of average estate size - would need to be checked.)
Once all that is figured out, I think the debt could go away fairly quickly.

There is no need to focus on people who are able to earn a salary while all this is going on. The ones I know who are earning money are all working for it one way or another.

I do think it would be important to not let the debt accumulate. If additional taxes are necessary, then so be it.

However, I also think we may be jumping the gun. The entire economic landscape is going to look different when this is over, and we really don't know what that will be. Also, at an international level, some things will likely be put in pace to deal with debt somehow.

It's all subject to change, kBill, and the regulations haven't come out yet.

Kidd, my proposal was only intended to address the problem which had been raised. Other problems; for other solutions required.

I realize it's in flux, but the legislation as passed is very clear, i.e. if you've ceased working for 14 consecutive days in the initial 4 week period that's what you need. And the commentary re "subsequent periods", i.e. subsequent periods are treated differently than the initial period, has been there from day one despite a complete lack of that idea in the legislation. I'm sure it'll all be clarified at some point but it's interesting to me how this idea arose - ?

Also, an "imported virus" surtax would need to take into account the additional interest on that borrowed money.

We'll need a finance minister like Paul Martin to guide Canada through what's coming !
Paul Martin should be a mentor to all finance ministers.

Finally found some recent (17 hours ago) commentary (narcity.com) that echoes my read of current legislation: "According to CRA, if you start working after you've gotten a payment but then stop working again, you need to completely re-apply. When you do that, you have to confirm that you won't get employment income, self-employment income and/or provincial or federal benefits related to maternity or paternity leave for at least 14 days in a row during the period you're applying for." I.e. if you work for 2 weeks but are off for 14 days in any period you can apply for that period. And wife tells me Trudeau's going to tweak CERB again soon.

I would guess 95% of Canadians if asked could not articulate the federal debt (or deficit, for that matter) number, if my circle is typical. IMO our voting priorities are determined in the last two weeks before an election as the media directs our attention to its primary issue of choice and, I could be wrong, but I don't recall a federal election where the media made the federal deficit/debt be that determining issue.

If the idea is that the younger generation is not sufficiently careful abput money and/or is living from paycheque to paycheque, then it follows that they would need emergency funding from the government in these trying times. In that case, given the logic that is usually applied by forum members, it should be them, not seniors, who are on the hook to pay it off.

I'm not saying I necessarily support this idea, but am wondering what those who usually have harsh words for young spenders and also expect seniors to pay for their bailouts would say.