This Month’s Poll

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