KBR Poll: Should the OAS Clawback Start at a Lower Income Level?

The question of whether the Old Age Security (OAS) clawback should begin at a lower income than the current $93,454 threshold generated strong and varied reactions from the Knowledge Bureau community with 19% saying “yes” and the vast majority - 81% -  saying no. Many respondents were firmly opposed to lowering the threshold, with some expressing strong frustration at the idea of penalizing those who have saved for retirement:

“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.” from N. Newton

A similar sentiment was echoed by Brian, who framed OAS as part of a broader tax contribution over a lifetime: “We pay a ridiculous amount of tax during our careers… so a BIG NO!”

Rising costs were also a key concern. Several respondents noted that income levels near the current threshold are not as comfortable as they once were:

“$93,000 does not go as far as it used to… health care costs take a large chunk out of that for many seniors.” — Brenda A

Others emphasized the realities of aging and the unpredictability of expenses:

“Expenses for the aged increase substantially… people who have worked hard and saved hard are being penalised.” — A. Newton

However, not all respondents agreed. Some believe OAS should be more targeted toward those who need it most:

“OAS is just like welfare or disability benefits and should be for the lower income seniors.”  — Lori P

There were also calls for broader reform, rather than a simple adjustment to the threshold. James Rodgers offered a more structural perspective:

“Lower the income threshold… and increase the clawback rate at higher income levels… to improve fairness and efficiency.” — James Rodgers

A number of readers pointed out that the issue is more complex than a single income line. Concerns were raised about unintended consequences and planning challenges:

“If a senior receives a one-time influx of income, it affects the next year’s OAS… they struggle to make ends meet the year after.” — Robert Litschel

Others highlighted the impact on future behaviour and savings:

“Penalizing someone able to plan and save… doesn’t encourage the trend in future generations.” — Brenda A

At the same time, some shifted the focus entirely to those most in need:

“I am more concerned for the seniors living on only CPP, OAS and the GIS… trying to survive on around 30k per year.”  — Ken Martinsen

There were also practical suggestions raised, including measuring clawbacks based on family income, accounting for real-life expenses in retirement, and reconsidering eligibility rules. Clint W, for example, noted:

“OAS is designed as a support, not as a lottery win… clawback should be measured on family income.”
— Clint W

The discussion ultimately reflects a broader question: what is the purpose of OAS? As Derek T summarized: “It comes down to the purpose of the program.” 

Whether viewed as a universal benefit or targeted support, any change to the OAS clawback raises important questions about fairness, sustainability, and incentives within Canada’s retirement income system.

Thanks for participating! This month we’re asking:

“Do you agree that public trustees, guardians and departments supporting Indigenous Services should be able to certify impairments for the Disability Tax Credit?”

Weigh in!