Social Policy in Ontario

How the deck got stacked against young Canadians

Posted on October 6, 2015 in Equality Debates

—

TheStar.com – Opinion/Commentary – Over the last decade, young Canadians have fallen further and further behind. It’s time to build a country that works for all generations.
Oct 06 2015.   By: Paul Kershaw

The Harper Shift is a month-long look at how Canada has changed over a decade of Conservative government – and at what kind of country we want to become. Here Paul Kershaw considers the generation Canada’s economy left behind.

Over the past 10 years, our federal government invested more in the aging population while cutting their taxes. You might think my 71-year-old mother thinks this is good. She doesn’t.  She knows it means the government paid too little attention to the growing economic and environmental risks facing her kids and grandchildren.

This is true, despite one of Stephen Harper’s favourite talking points — middle incomes increased on his watch.

Out of context, this fact obscures the bigger picture. Compared to a generation ago, twice as many young Canadians now give up years in the labour market to pursue post-secondary schooling to compete for jobs. After spending more time and money in education, young adults struggle to land stable, full-time work with benefits. For those who do, full-time earnings have not kept pace with housing prices.

The average cost of housing is up $116,000 after inflation, compared to 2005. Housing costs more even as apartments get smaller in our bigger cities. This squeezes younger generations for space, time and money just when we want to start our families. Compared to when Harper began as PM, we must work an extra two to three years to save a 20-per-cent down payment.

Then we must carry larger mortgages, working an extra month to make annual payments compared to a generation ago — even though interest rates are low compared to the 1980s.

For many, this crushes dreams of home ownership, while imposing rents driven by higher property prices.

The housing market that frustrates younger Canadians has been good for my mom’s demographic. The average person over 55 enjoys more than $165,000 additional wealth in their homes after inflation compared to 1977.

I’m glad my mom accumulated this wealth. But she and I wonder why the federal government prioritized cutting taxes for the aging population? Income-splitting for seniors costs $1.1 billion annually. The pension income credit costs $1.1 billion. The “age” tax break for anyone over 65 costs $3 billion.

Not done there, Harper doubled the contribution limit for Tax Free Savings Accounts in his election budget. Canadians over 60 are three to five times more likely to max out their TFSAs compared to those 18 to 49. TFSAs shelter deposits from further taxation no matter how well investments pay off.

He also cut $168 million per year in taxes for affluent seniors by changing rules governing Registered Retirement Income Funds — at a cost that is greater in one year than the total Harper added to student grants over the next three.

Ironically, the opposition accuses Harper of cutting government spending because of his tax cuts. But this isn’t accurate. Annual spending on Old Age Security increased by $8 billion after inflation over Harper’s decade, and the Canada Health Transfer increased $10 billion. Forty-seven per cent of health care spending goes to the 16 per cent of the population over 65.

What Harper didn’t increase substantially is spending on younger generations. Ottawa contributes to a federal/provincial spending pattern that invests more than $33,000 per person over 65 compared to less than $12,000 per person under 45. This calculation includes the PM’s universal child care benefit, and income-splitting for one in three families with kids.

Harper’s main rivals promise to do better, but don’t always budget enough.

The NDP talks about $15-a-day child care. But the $1.9 billion they budget isn’t a quarter of what is required.

The Liberal platform so far budgets the most of the big three parties for families raising kids. But their promise to extend parental leave by six months is backed by too little money to make a meaningful difference.

By the platform numbers, the national party last in the polls is currently first for proposing more for younger Canadians. The Greens would eliminate tuition for a first post-secondary degree, and reallocate three times more money for child care services than the NDP.

The Greens promise more money than other parties for a national housing strategy.

And the Greens are concrete about pricing pollution so that markets ensure younger Canadians aren’t left with the costs of keeping our air, water, and land clean, while mitigating climate change.

No matter which party you prefer, it’s time all parties commit Ottawa to reporting how spending breaks down by age, and whether we are leaving at least as much as we inherited.

Although such reporting would cost Ottawa only a little staff time, it is a prerequisite for Canada to work for all generations.

Dr. Paul Kershaw is a policy professor at the University of British Columbia and founder of Generation Squeeze (gensqueeze.ca).

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/10/06/how-the-deck-got-stacked-against-young-canadians.html >

Tags: budget, featured, ideology, participation, standard of living, youth

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 10:53 am and is filed under Equality Debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.