Yes.
Evidence of meeting #46 for Status of Women in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tax.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #46 for Status of Women in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tax.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Chairman, Georgian Bay Chapter, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus
Yes.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Regarding CPP—and I don't know—can't women get that early, but only if they have a disability? What is the rule around that? Do you know?
4:45 p.m.
Chairman, Georgian Bay Chapter, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus
You can get CPP at 60--
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Chairman, Georgian Bay Chapter, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus
—but you take a reduced amount.
One of the things I suggested, as I understand it—I hope I've got it right—is that a woman might earn a small CPP from her own experience in the workforce and also have entitlement to her husband's after he's dead. I'm saying she should be able to collect both. I don't think you can now.
4:45 p.m.
An hon. member
You get partial.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I didn't want the bell to ring and you to get a shock.
We'll go to round three.
I am an accountant by trade, so whatever you're saying, I'm calculating in my head. I'm dying to hear somebody ask you the question, but if nobody does, then I will.
Ms. Neville.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thank you very much.
Let me begin by apologizing for coming late. It seems to have been a pattern recently, and I'm sorry.
I have read your submission. I have a couple of scenarios that I would welcome some comment on.
Mr. Braniff, you indicated that should the pension splitting come into effect and should—and we certainly hope not—something happen to you, your wife would not benefit, and you're recommending, as I understand it, a retroactivity for it.
There are two scenarios I want to present. The first one concerns a husband and wife who have a middle-class income; he dies, and she loses a portion of his pension. They are pension splitting. They have a lower tax rate. He dies, and suddenly she has fewer dollars coming in and now a higher tax rate. What would you recommend in that scenario?
In the second scenario I want to describe, Budget 2006 increased the tax rate for low-income earners—that means those earning less than $36,000—from 15% to 15.5%. It also reduced, I understand, the basic personal amount by $400. This had the overall effect of increasing the amount of tax paid by seniors by about $350.
Income splitting, as a tax measure, does give the two seniors a lower tax bracket. There's no question about that. However, it has a negative impact, potentially, of clawing back the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. So what happens when one person dies? My understanding is that the recent budget of 2007 does not transfer the actual dollars, and that therefore the senior who is left no longer has the GIS and the OAS available to them. Have you any recommendations on either scenario?
4:50 p.m.
Chairman, Georgian Bay Chapter, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus
Well, on the first instance you would want to put in place—and it's not going to happen for somebody who's going to die next week—something that recognizes, for everybody who's married, the circumstance the widow or the widower will be in following a death. If you're going to save on those taxes, what a wonderful opportunity to put some of it away for the widow.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Chairman, Georgian Bay Chapter, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus
Yes, well, you should have the flexibility. You've been paying the taxes, and you've been living, hopefully, to the living standard you can afford. I don't have a complete answer, but I think you're on the right track--how can we adjust this?
One of the things you'll find in my package is that.... For example, in my case, my pension dies with me, and that was a decision we made together. But I have a feeling that a lot of the decisions that were made in that respect weren't really signed off by both parties, or at least they weren't signed off with the recognition that there needs to be a different plan in place. If you're going to lose the whole pension and your widow is going to suffer, then shame on you. It might be a shame on you or it might be ignorance.
When I retired in 1985 from Bell Canada you didn't have to get a spouse's signature. I tell my wife to say, “Hey, I had nothing to do with it. Give me my money.” She won't do that; she's too honourable. The point is that even if the decision had been made together, it might have been made under circumstances that have changed a great deal, like taxes have changed. I would have been better off, if I look back at it, but I didn't understand all the nuances. I thought by taking life insurance I could supplant that particular requirement. Well, my life insurance...I can't get any now that I'm 76.
Only by educating our public...and we have a highly sophisticated population in Canada, and it's getting more so. If we present the opportunity and present the urgency of doing this.... People do some financial planning, but it's usually at the will of some financial advisor who wants to sell you something. We should have a provision where you can get this financial planning. Wouldn't we all be better off if everybody had a plan? We wouldn't have to worry about some of these circumstances.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I'm sorry, your time is up.
Thank you.
Ms. Smith, I think I can grant you three minutes.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you.
Can I just ask you a question? I just heard this a little earlier from one of the members opposite. It's my understanding that GIS is income tested but OAS isn't. So OAS never gets clawed back, does it?
4:55 p.m.
Chairman, Georgian Bay Chapter, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus
No. It's not income tested.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Chairman, Georgian Bay Chapter, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus
Old age security is clawed back. GIS is dependent on household income, as I understand.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
We need to get a clarification, because basically it's not in your purview.
4:55 p.m.
Chairman, Georgian Bay Chapter, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus
I'm not an expert.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
It's not in your purview, and nobody knows about the pension splitting at taxation. The taxation isn't finalized, so we will get it when the finance department....
