The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, December 20, 2007
In news that will gladden the heart of every member of Gen X and Y, the C.D. Howe Institute reported today that Canadian governments are unprepared for $1.4 trillion in extra spending related to the aging of Baby Boomers.
Further, the young ones that one day Boomers will be shouting at to get off their lawn will face taxes the kind of which have never been seen by Canadians in the past. Whenever I tell my mother how bad it will be for future generations forced to pay for her cohort's retirement she laughs and says that it won't be that bad. No, not for her. Ain't a generational ponzi scheme a great thing?
Read on. (PDF)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ouch:
Talk about planting the seeds of a Revolution!
But this is Canada, where the National Motto is:
TAX ME, I'M CANADIAN!
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-20 5:23:25 PM
Supposedly immigration will cure this problem.
I wonder why generationally long term Canadians stopped having children anyway? Could it be because in order to maintain any kind of standard of living and stay ahead of taxation and inflation two incomes are required? And all those extra tax dollars help to subsidize immigration...and round and round it goes...right till it all will just stop.
The deer in the woods don't multiply when there's no food either. Its a no brainer. The system (socialism) simply doesn't work. Never has, never will.
Posted by: JC | 2007-12-20 5:56:28 PM
THIS boomer has seen it coming for a long time.
The old age pension, Canada Pension and all those other social safety net's biggest beneficiaries were all the depression-era people.
They were the ones who created the social programs when their political will rose in the 60's and 70, just the time people like me were getting into the work force and shifting our earnings to them.
Once I cottoned onto how much Trudeupia was going to cost and the ultimate intergenerational warfare it would cause, I have consistently voted for governments which promise to spend the least amount of my money. And let my children know why I was against these Ponzi scheme social programs.
On a cheerier side, the U.S. birth rate is now at 2.1, above replacement.
I'm sure Alberta's is even higher. We'll be OK and I know I will be, since my retirement planning does not include any dependence on government largesse.
So, X and Yers, my advice to you is not to rely on the state to take care of you when you get old. And, you will get old.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-12-20 6:03:43 PM
See what is happening in the old Soviet Union. In the East, China will march in and take over Siberia and its oil & natural gas within 2 decades - if not sooner.
In the central & western sections, Muslims are breeding the Russians out of existence - also within 2 decades or so.
Men's life expectancy is in the 40's, due mainly to vodka. Then again, if you lived under Communism and now KGB Putin, vodka is the only pleasure that remains.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-20 6:07:40 PM
"I wonder why generationally long term Canadians stopped having children anyway?"
It correlates with percentage of foreign born (immigrants) in the country. In 1911, percentage of foreign born rose to well over 20% and birth rates declined from 144 live births per 1000 in 1911 to 87/1000 in 1941. As the percentage of foreign born fell, after immigration restriction in 1931, by 1951 live births per 1000 rose to 109, peeking at 117 in 1956. As the percentage of foreign born has increased from the 1960s to the present day, which almost matches 1921, the native born fertility rate has declined.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-12-20 7:39:38 PM
I see a future of hundreds of thousands of homeless seniors of their meds.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-20 11:16:04 PM
A distinct possibility is that the government may decide to cut off essential medical services once seniors reach a certain age or condition. It is also possible that the "Dutch Solution for the elderly would be applied. If abortion is so easily facilitated, why not ease the elderly out of this "painful" existence? You don't see it coming? Take a closer look.
Posted by: DML | 2007-12-20 11:42:35 PM
Today's old folks never paid their own way - tax them, it's about time.
Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-12-21 12:38:08 AM
"Today's old folks never paid their own way - tax them, it's about time."
Spoken as a truly well trained socialist minion.
Taxation is in and of itself immoral and a criminal enterprise.
Main Entry: phi·lan·thro·py
Inflected Form(s): plural phi·lan·thro·pies
Etymology: Late Latin philanthropia, from Greek philanthrōpia, from philanthrōpos loving people, from phil- + anthrōpos human being
Date: circa 1623
1: goodwill to fellowmen; especially : active effort to promote human welfare
Taxation is not philanthropy its slavery...you seem confused somehow.
Posted by: JC | 2007-12-21 6:17:16 AM
So if I understand your post, it would seem that surges in births correlate with an influx of immigrants. But after a generation or two that surge in births passes until the next surge of immigration?
If so, it would seem that after a generation or so they have figured out what I asserted earlier and that it requires another influx of unsuspecting immigrants to create another surge in the birth rate.
That being siad I maintain that the socialist system is still non functional and that it can only be maintained by creating a larger work force to tax. Thus allowing the government to continue in its irresponsible and free spending ways....
Posted by: JC | 2007-12-21 6:40:24 AM
This is isn't really news. Douglas Coupland talked about this in his 1991 breakout novel, Generation X. Mind you, he's what you might label a 'leftoid' because one of his more recent books—Jpod—is being adapted to a series on the CBC, so who's to say anyone here's read his work.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2007-12-21 7:42:06 AM
"So if I understand your post, it would seem that surges in births correlate with an influx of immigrants."
It's the reverse. Decline in native birth rates correlate with a surge in immigration. It's simply supply and demand. A mass of people moving into your neighbourhood drives up the cost of housing (because of the additional demand)and drives down wages (because of the additional supply of labour).
Posted by: Dj | 2007-12-21 9:04:45 PM
Gotcha. Interesting take.
Posted by: JC | 2007-12-21 10:30:27 PM
It's simply supply and demand. A mass of people moving into your neighbourhood drives up the cost of housing (because of the additional demand)and drives down wages (because of the additional supply of labour).
This rule does not apply to Fort McMurray
Posted by: Rules | 2008-01-12 8:09:19 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.