This Month’s Poll

No NO a thousand times NO.    Seniors who saved and tried to provide for their old age should not be penalised for doing just that.  They could have sat in the taverns and drunk themselves penniless so why should those who tried to save and scrimp be penalised.

By N. Newton on April 22, 2026

I am of the opinion that OAS is just like welfare or disability benefits and should be for the lower income seniors. Not for those who have money. Taxpayers don’t pay into OAS directly, and there is no expectation that Seniors should collect unless they need it.

By Lori P on April 22, 2026

Old Age Security (OAS) is a universal benefit available to Canadians age 65 and older. Its purpose is to ensure that all seniors have a minimum level of income in retirement to support basic needs such as food and shelter.

However, not all recipients rely on OAS for those basic needs. Many higher-income retirees receive the benefit despite having sufficient income from pensions, investments, and other sources. In these cases, OAS often becomes discretionary income rather than essential support.

At the same time, public resources are limited. Allocating government funds to individuals who do not require financial support raises important questions about efficiency and fairness. Those with lower incomes, who depend on government assistance to meet basic living needs, arguably require greater support.

Currently, the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is intended to address this issue by providing additional income to lower-income seniors. However, GIS has strict income thresholds and high clawback rates, which can discourage saving and create complexity in retirement planning.

One possible alternative would be to simplify the system by increasing Old Age Security (OAS), lowering the income threshold at which it begins to be clawed back, and increasing the clawback rate at higher income levels. This could allow for a more streamlined approach that maintains a universal base benefit while directing more support toward those who need it most.

Such a structure could improve fairness, reduce complexity, and better ensure long-term financial security for Canadian seniors.

To come back to the question at hand, Should OAS claw back begin at a lower level. Yes but that is only a small part of the reforms that are needed to serve the Canadian public and greater efficiency in how our taxes are used.

By James Rodgers on April 20, 2026

Sorry, we pay a ridiculous amount of tax during our careers, and still have to pay once we retire, so a BIG NO!
This is an obligation, a social contract if you like, between the government and the people who have managed to stick it out in this pseudo democracy for 40 years.
Now, because the government has mismanaged the economy, with abundant self inflicted wounds and unforced errors, they want to come after seniors who have invested and prepared for their retirement and have PLANNED for this income stream (which is just getting some of their overtaxation back)?
You might be able to convince me that it could be reduced a BIT, but that is only for MB where the cost of living is less than other provinces.
Going from $186K per couple to $100K (no doubt the libs will not index it annually either) shows how desperate the liberals are and how they have screwed canadians into the ground.
If this passes, its only the beginning of the slippery slope to claw us all back to the point of a universal income, for those with lesser income.
Misery loves company!
If they want to change it going forward, then reduce the taxes so people can effectively keep that much more income.
They tax the OAS anyway, so what is the issue if it gets near the clawback limit?
My opinion is, trial this in ON and PQ for 10 years and get back to us.
That seems to be where all the idiocy in policy originates.

By Brian on April 15, 2026

There seems to be a good deal of concern about people with a 93k income. I am more concerned for the seniors living on only CPP, OAS and the GIS. They are trying to survive on around 30k per year. That cannot be a pleasant experience.

By Ken Martinsen on April 15, 2026

NO Expenses for the aged increase substantially - retirement home expenses have increased beyond reason as well as health care costs.  People who have worked hard and saved hard are being penalised for just that by the clawback.  They need every penny in their old age.

By A. Newton on April 09, 2026

In case you are not aware, the clawback actually benefits the taxpayer.  The amount clawed back is recorded as income tax deducted, so the senior affected actually benefits more by having some of the OAS clawed back.  Think about it.  If $1000 is clawed back, the taxes owing on that amount would be up to $500 where the full $1000 is considered as taxes prepaid.

By Rosalind Lee Kemp Gleave on April 08, 2026

Not only does $93,000 not go as far as it used to, but health care costs take a large chuck out of that for many seniors.  The costs for homecare or a facility, medications, personal supplies, home modifications and devices can eat away at income quickly. If one spouse is in care and the other maintaining the home and living expenses, making ends meet can be a struggle .

I believe OAS clawback should be life expense tested. Perhaps taking into account the actual costs of aging instead of a random income level may help struggling seniors.

I also agree that OAS clawback shouldn’t apply to the following year. I have clients disgusted with parent or grandparents clawback situation. They are taking seasonal layoffs or short term jobs. Making enough to get what they need and living with parents into there 30’s. Taking the view that the Government can take careof them.

From my perspective,  penalizing someone able to plan and save for retirement, probably into a higher tax bracket doesn’t encourage the trend in future generations.

By Brenda A on April 04, 2026

I think people who are in higher tax bracket should not be panelized for making more money . There is a lot of people who own properties and living on low income , so government is supporting them to keep their house . on the other hand somebody was saving in RRSP, paying more to CPP over working years and now their income is higher that 93,000 and they will loose a benefit?

By Margaret Kania on April 02, 2026

Yes, reduce the ‘family’ income level (not individual) where it starts being clawed back.  At the same time, increase the GIS to help the seniors that really need it.

By AJ on April 02, 2026

N/A this time.

By John W. Alwi on April 01, 2026

I voted no, but with conditions. Firstly, OAS payouts should be changed to start at age 70.  The change should be phased in over 5 years.  OAS was never designed to be paid for 30 years.
Secondly, OAS clawback should be measured on family income.  Currently, for a couple, clawback starts at 186,000.  This is far too high.  OAS is designed as a support, not as a lottery win.

By Clint W on April 01, 2026

I do not think there should be any claw back on Old Age Security

This is a benefit to all Canadians regardless of income.

This is only the Govt way of taxing in excess of the high limits which they have reached in many Provinces

By JOSEPH A TRUSCOTT CPA on April 01, 2026

I do not think the OAS clawback should be any lower.  Perhaps it could rise slower than in the past but, all in all, it is good.  I agree with Derek T that $93k does not go as far today as it used to so using an arbitrated number to go back seems like an injustice.  The seniors that do have a high income are aware of the clawback and understand it. 
One problem, though, is that if a senior receives a one-time influx of income, it affects the next years OAS receipts.  They struggle to make ends meet the year after, in other words.  That should be addressed.  Have the clawback but don’t reduce the following year for good measure.

By Robert Litschel on April 01, 2026

Not only should the “clawback” start at a lower figure it should max out at a lower amount as well.  Start it way lower and max it median income - those whose income is above median don’t receive it.  It should not supplement above average incomes.

By Jim on April 01, 2026

I’m not sure how I feel about this.  I guess it comes down to the purpose of the program.  Frankly, $93,000 isn’t a massive income in today’s world.  Yes, it is above median, but I’m not sure that implies that is the ideal level to start clawing back.  A higher income senior is likely to have contributed more taxes over their lifetime than a lower income one.  Does that automatically mean they shouldn’t see some benefit?  There are also other programs for those on the lower end of the income spectrum. 

If it’s about income redistribution, which seems to be a theme of tax policy, then perhaps it makes sense.  If it is about ensuring seniors have a stable base of income, then perhaps not.  It seems more seniors are now entering retirement with debt, but also continuing to work.  If they are working because they enjoy it, more power to them.  If they feel they are forced to continue to work to make ends meet, then that is an issue to be looked at. 

Considering we haven’t even broached the subject of retirement age being “defined” as 65…when it first came in, that was about life expectancy.  Now that our life expectancy is approaching 85, perhaps not all our retirement / seniors programs and benefits should be starting so early.  Of course, proposing to increase OAS eligibility to 67 was seen to be political suicide a while back.

By Derek T on April 01, 2026