As Stephen Harper’s administration reviews looming Old Age Security payments, we should expect an increase in the retirement age.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the surprise announcement Monday that his office will be examining Old Age Security payments.
As the wave of aging Baby Boomers begins retiring, the prime minister says the government worries about its ability to afford cutting retiree paycheques into the foreseeable future.
The announcement comes in spite of a recent Ottawa-commissioned study that reports Canada doesn’t have much reason to fret over the sustainability of its public pension fund, especially when compared to other developed nations (see the U.S. and Europe).
But would many protest raising the retirement age to 67 in the near future? Frances Woolley points out today in The Globe & Mail that few, if anyone, would utter a word of complaint at having to work two additional years.
I'm not sure I agree, particularly when you examine the state of other public pension funds. When Canada's fund is in a sustainable state, it's tough to justify the cost-saving measure of forcing the elderly to work an additional 24 months to collect all their benefits. I can think of a few groups who would put up some semblance of a fight.
Our neighbours to the south are raising the full retirement age and the United Kingdom is upping its state pension age as well. As our peers in the developed world make the jump, Canada won’t be far behind.