um anit o ba.

ca

http://umanito ba.ca/o utreach/evidencenetwo rk/archives/5074

Lets debate OAS based on fact, not perception

A version of this commentary appeared in the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star Faced with an aging population that he claims poses a threat to our social programs, Stephen Harper says that we need to make Canadas retirement-income system sustainable. He hinted that part of the solution might be to raise the age of entitlement f or Old Age Security benef its (OAS), f rom todays 65 upward to 67. T he government has since sof tened on this point, and assured Canadians that any ref orms put in place will ensure the security of retirement benef its f or existing seniors and f uture generations, but the idea of pension ref orm still looms. Certainly, the sustainability of the OAS and C/QPP are worthy goals and worth a public discussion and debate as how to achieve this sustainability. But such a debate should be based in f act not perception. For example, we are told that OAS will cost Canadians $108B in 2030 up f rom $36.5B today. While both f igures are correct, they are meaningless on their own. What we need to know is whether or not such costs are af f ordable in a growing Canadian economy. Is the system unsustainable? T hankf ully, the answer to this question already exists. T he Chief Actuary of the OAS system reports regularly (and publicly) on the f inancial health of the system. His last published Report was the 8th Actuarial Report published in 2008. In that Report, he conf irms that the cost of OAS (including GIS) would rise to $108B in 2030 consistent with Prime Minister Harpers statistics. He also points out that while in 2007, there were 4.7 Canadians aged 20 to 64 per individual aged 65+, that that ratio would f all to 2.4 in 2030 or almost exactly in half . But there are other attributes that need to be remembered. First, OAS is taxable income so a lot of the monies paid out go straight back to Ottawa. Second, the OAS is f urther clawed back depending on your income. If your own income exceeds $67,668 then you lose your OAS at a 15% claw back rate. If you have income of $110,123 or more, you get no OAS at all. For the GIS, the claw back rate is 50% starting at $3500 so that if you have income in your own right of $16,230 (other than the OAS), you get no GIS at all. Finally, OAS/GIS costs rise with CPI whereas tax revenues rise with the growth in GDP. Normally, the latter rises f aster than the f ormer. So, do Canadians need to worry about the sustainability of OAS? Not according to the Chief Actuary. Based on the assumption that the cost of living would rise 2.5% per annum and that earnings would rise at 3.8% per annum (i.e., real wage growth of 1.3% per annum), the Chief Actuary projected that the cost of OAS as a percentage of GDP would be 2.2% in 2007; it would then peak at 3.1% in 2030 and then f all (as the baby boomers die of f ) to 2.7% in 2050. He f urther points out that if these assumptions prove to be true, each generation of retirees will receive an OAS benef it that will be a smaller ratio of their f inal pay (the replacement ratio) than the generations bef ore. One needs to ask then if this indicates that the OAS system is unsustainable. Are we f acing a demographic

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.