It has become a common refrain spoken, once in jest, by baby boomers and those who once hoped for early retirement: Freedom 55 became Freedom 75 and now, Freedom 85?
Well, the prime minister has added a whole new layer of economic fear to many seniors' future plans when he suggested this past week that his government may move the Old Age Supplement eligilibity from 65 years to 67 years.
Yes, the Conservatives pledge they will not raise the age of eligibility for the Old Age Supplement for several years, and they promise to leave the current recipients alone. But, if implemented in the future, it will have a large impact on poor seniors.
It's not as if many seniors can decide to work for an extra two years, nor should they in many cases. There are not many opportunities for seniors to pick up extra
income - barring newspaper delivery or working at McDonald's. Not that we think those are bad things to do - if you're doing it voluntarily and not under financial duress.
Many seniors live at or near the poverty level, and, for them, less money will mean less food, heat or housing options. It will be a hardship, and it will be stressful. It will increase health issues and, yes, it will mean life or death to some. Those in lower income groups live shorter lives, and denying them two years of OAS benefits will not help.
We understand times are tight, and there's no pot of gold hidden somewhere. But surely a better plan would be to build senior volunteer corps - similar to peace corps - where seniors could contribute to their communities and earn much-needed retirement funds.
Or, yes, expand the OAS clawbacks. This is something many seniors don't want to hear - after all, if you see yourself as being fiscally prudent all your life, only to be "penalized" for it, it does seem unfair.
But there's a vast difference between being able to take a European cruise or having heat in your cramped apartment. Surely, as compassionate Canadians, we understand that difference.
