Author: johnastapleton

Most Canadians have heard of RRSPs turning into RRIFs but fewer understand RRIFs. And fewer still understand how a RRIF can become a costly surprise for low-income seniors. We have already published the parable of Cinderella and the three gifts of retirement. Now let's unpack this historically and analytically: 1957: The RRSP is born The RRSP was introduced in 1957. The idea was straightforward: encourage Canadians to save for retirement by allowing them to deduct contributions from taxable income and defer tax until later. They earn RRSP room generally at 18% of their wages. 1978: The RRIF joins the family Twenty-one years later in 1978, the RRIF arrived. As in the folk tale Cinderella, something unwelcome happens at the stroke of a particular midnight and there is a policy-based curfew.…

Many years ago, at a conference in Vancouver, a woman described her experience in Ontario's Basic Income Pilot. She had previously been receiving Ontario Works. What she remembered most wasn't the amount of money. It was something much simpler. She said that while receiving Ontario Works, she had been "kicked off" assistance around fifty times as she tried to work over many years. Under the Basic Income Pilot, that stopped happening. That one observation has stayed with me ever since. How much can an Ontario Works recipient earn before they aren't eligible? For many years I conducted full-day workshops with Ontario Works and ODSP recipients in Toronto. Together, we would calculate something almost nobody knew—not the recipients, not many workers, and often not community agencies. How much could each person…

The bedrock of Canada’s retirement income system is OAS, CPP and a pension. But there are three other important elements of the system: The RRSP, the RRIF, and the TFSA. The following is a parable that explains how they work for rich and poor, Cinderella's story Once upon a time, in a constitutional monarchy called Canada, there lived a young woman named Cinderella. She worked very hard. Every morning, she scrubbed floors, carried water, washed clothes and did whatever honest work she could find. She never earned very much, but she earned enough that the Prime Minister took notice. "He who works should be encouraged to save," he proclaimed. RRSPs So, in 1957, the Prime Minister summoned the Fairy Godmother—known throughout the kingdom as the Queen of Canada—and asked her…

One of the great ironies of modern public policy is that many of the people who criticize identity politics seem to have adopted one of its central assumptions. The assumption is simple: If we know which group someone belongs to, we know something important about their interests. Mistaking age for advantage For years we have heard politics discussed through the lenses of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, geography, and culture. Increasingly, however, another identity has entered the conversation and that is generation:  young people/millennials vs boomers/seniors. Generation Squeeze has been enormously successful in drawing attention to the challenges facing younger Canadians. Housing affordability, student debt, precarious work, and the rising cost of raising children are real issues. They deserve serious attention. But there is a growing risk that the policy discussion…

I have never been much of a soccer fan. Like many Canadians, I grew up on hockey and Canadian football. I can appreciate great athletes, but I have never followed (soccer) football closely. Yet watching Canada compete successfully on the world stage for the first time, I found myself fascinated by something that had little to do with tactics, formations, or even goals. What captivated me was the emotion. Not simply the existence of emotion, but its intensity, visibility, and astonishing brevity. A player scores and immediately appears transported into a state of complete serenity. Fingers go into ears. Arms stretch outward. Eyes close. The face becomes almost beatific. A few seconds later, the moment is over. The player is jogging back to midfield. Another player misses a chance. Hands…

Comedian Aamer Rahman once discussed the idea of "reverse racism" in his 2014 standup comedy routine. His point was not that reverse racism was impossible, but before he could plausibly stand on a stage and ask, "What's with white people?", a remarkable number of historical reversals would first have to take place. White people would have needed to be excluded from jobs, housing, education, political power, wealth accumulation, and social influence for centuries. Only after all those reversals occurred would the question begin to make sense. The joke works because the audience understands that the necessary conditions simply did not exist. I find myself thinking about that routine whenever I read another proposal to lower the OAS clawback threshold in the name of intergenerational fairness. To do list before we…

At a City of Toronto budget consultation last year in Scarborough, I noticed something curious. Staff members circulated through the room taking photographs. Participants sat in groups discussing city priorities. Somewhere near the entrance was a sign indicating that by attending we consented to being photographed. At the time, I thought little of it. Later, however, I began seeing many of those photographs online. There were pictures of residents gathered around tables, people speaking into microphones, small groups in discussion, staff facilitating conversations. The message was unmistakable: Consultation was happening. Or was it? The experience left me wondering whether we have quietly redefined what consultation means. Presence vs participation Traditionally, consultation was judged by outcomes. Residents were invited to participate because their views might influence decisions. The important questions were…

This is a list to counter ‘cut OAS to help the young’ articles. Some arguments are fiscal, some are conceptual, some are political. Together they amount to a comprehensive critique. The five most powerful arguments are:   > The problem is wealth - the proposed solution targets income.   > OAS is analyzed in gross terms, not net terms after taxes and clawbacks.   > The denominator is manipulated by using federal program spending rather than broader measures.   > OAS is being criticized because it succeeded in reducing senior poverty.   > The fixation on OAS may be a substitute for a serious discussion about wealth concentration, inheritances, housing gains, and asset inequality.   These five together probably dismantle 80% of the contemporary ‘cut OAS for intergenerational fairness’ literature.…

Canada's debate over intergenerational fairness is increasingly focused on Old Age Security. Proposals from Senator Andrew Cardozo and Generation Squeeze founder Paul Kershaw to reduce OAS payments for seniors with higher household incomes call for government to redirect the savings toward younger Canadians facing unemployment and economic insecurity. The concern is legitimate. Young Canadians face extraordinary challenges. Housing costs have exploded. Stable employment has become harder to find. Student debt remains significant. Many young adults are postponing family formation and wealth accumulation. Governments should absolutely do more to support younger generations. But the proposed solution reveals a growing weakness in Canada's public policy debate. It confuses income with wealth. And because of that confusion, it risks weakening one of Canada's most successful income security programs while doing little to address…

“There’s a growing impression among the taxpayers of this province that they are being drained of their money to provide a living for idlers.” — Mitch Hepburn, 1935 “We had to create ‘get-off-your-duff-and-do-something fare.’” — Mike Harris, 2002 “It really bothers me that we have healthy people sitting at home collecting your hard-earned dollars.” — Doug Ford, 2023 Three premiers. Nearly ninety years apart. All won majorities. All won re-election. Yet all were animated by the same question: What are poor people doing all day? The persistence of this concern is remarkable. Economic conditions changed. Governments changed. Welfare rules changed. Yet the emotional tone remained surprisingly constant. Why the concern? The obvious explanation is fiscal concern. Politicians worry about public spending. But that explanation quickly falls apart. If the issue…