60 Plus: “I still can’t touch my darn toes”

I sit down at the computer everyday and if I would simply stretch for three minutes before doing so, I bet I would be able to touch my toes within two weeks. But I forget to stretch. And I still can’t touch my toes after admitting such a couple of weeks ago.


["I'm getting closer": Photos by GH]

Perhaps if I placed a sticky note on the bathroom mirror I’d remember to stretch. Chances are, however, I’d forget about the note while making my first pot of coffee of the day.

Perhaps if I placed the sticky note on the coffee pot I’d remember to stretch. Chances are, however, I’d forget about it while heating up some of the oatmeal I keep in the fridge. And a note on the fridge would get lost among the other notes, photos and calendars on the door.


Perhaps if I placed a note on my computer screen I’d remember to stretch. I.e., a little one down in the right corner near the ‘Trash Can’ icon.

I think I’m onto something. At 60 plus, I still get good ideas. They just take a while to formulate.

***

Is formulate the right word here?

Please click here for more 60 Plus.

.

2,012 Challenges in Modern Times PT 4: "Have a senior's moment when you're 12!"

["Phasing in 70 as the new retirement age at the rate of one month per year for 60 years should give everyone plenty of time to adjust as well, especially if everybody agreed with Sonneberg's hasty editorializing. Do you?" G.Harrison, Feb. 15, 2,012 Challenges PT 3]

By now some readers are wondering, if Gord doesn't like M. Sonneberg's "hasty editorializing" in the London Free Press and ability to "grease his own rails" concerning the withholding of Old Age Security Benefits for Canadians until they're 67, what does he like?

I like clarity, for one thing.

When Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says the withholding of benefits isn't for now, "it's for 2020... maybe 2025", he doesn't seem to have much of a handle on his own plan. I mean, Jim, do you know when you're going to afflict some seniors with a longer work life or don't you?

'Flaherty's clarity' is lacking in other areas as well. He is quick to tell us that OAS will cost us a lot of money in 10 years (Oh, it will be millions.) and even more in 20 years (Oh, it will be gazillions.), but he has said nary a word about how much PM Harper's drop in the GST has lowered government revenues (Oh, it will be billions.) or how much PM Harper's corporate tax cuts have lowered revenues that could support pensions and OAS benefits (Oh, it will be gazillions.).

And if we could get a clear answer from the Conservative Government about the price of just one F - 35 stealth fighter jet it's planning to buy, we would learn two very valuable pieces of information.

One, we would learn how the cost of one jet compares to the increased cost of OAS benefits the government is railing about. Two, we would learn how much the cost of 65 jets (the government's current plan) will rip out of government coffers during the same years the Conservatives want to keep seniors at work longer.

Here's what I propose that is as clear as clear can be.

Raise corporate taxes by 2 per cent and put the additional income toward the OAS benefit program.

Raise the GST by 2 cents so that Canadians - even kids buying their first iPhone or whatever else they spend their allowance on - will be supporting their senior years when making many purchases.

I also recommend the money from these changes be put into designated accounts for pensions so that it doesn't get spent on prisons.

Thots?

***

Please click here to read 2,012 Challenges in Modern Times PT 3.

.

2,012 Challenges in Modern Times PT1

It may just be a coincidence, but I have created a list of 2,012 challenges we face in modern times, and here it is, the year 2012.

The list - a fat tome, really - is based on opinion, speculation, suspicion, the odd fact or detail, and indigestion, or the feeling I get as soon as I hear a certain type of writer, politician or prognosticator clear his/her throat.


["The tome just keeps getting fatter": photo GH]

Let me give you an example from one of the middle pages.

Challenge in modern times #412: Hasty editorializing

In Monte Sonneberg’s recent ‘point of view’ (‘Pension reform requires sacrifice from everyone’, Feb. 7, London Free Press) a few good points about pensions are shared.

He writes, for example, “Given that companies are stockpiling the proceeds of recent corporate tax reductions, perhaps pension reform could coincide with an increase in the corporate tax rate.”

If that’s how he'd started his article I’d have initially thought Monte was sticking up whole-heartedly for the little guy or at least trying to get corporate Canada to take carry a fair load.

But nope. The article starts with the following:

“Canadians have to come to terms with the idea of a higher retirement age.”

WTHeck? Really? Is ‘a higher retirement age’ for the majority of Canadians the key plank in pension reform? Did I miss the referendum, straw vote, memo or nation-wide telephone poll?

Phffft! I don’t think so. Monte is just taking a quick stab at telling us what to believe, but he misses the mark with me.

Admittedly, there are people who want to work past the age of 65 and retire when they’re more ready to hang up the old apron, or sell the old metal lunch bucket at a yard sale, so to speak. They have various reasons for doing so; e.g., they like their job, they want to be active as long as possible and make their own decisions about work and retirement, they have kids in college, they’re saving for a trip to Disneyland, they have a big mortgage, etc. But that doesn’t mean Canadians, or even the majority of Canadians, have to accept or ‘come to terms with the idea of a higher retirement age.’

Monte later tries to get more people on board re Freedom 67 by concluding that “a lot has to change before Canadians will accept (phasing in 67)”, e.g, the aforementioned change or increase to the corporate tax rate, MP pensions, etc. But before doing so he greases the rails under his hasty editorializing, which highlights, in my opinion, another challenge in modern times.

Challenge in modern times #413: Greasing the rails under hasty editorializing

Stay tuned...

***

Please click here to read “Smoke and fire up your pants”

.

100 Challenges Ahead: 4b “Today’s blind spot about taxes”

[“Ontario is indebted to the tune of $244 billion... taxpayers will be on the hook for almost $500 billion in eight years’ time...” Oct. 14, J. Daubs, London Free Press)]

Today’s generation can spot ‘challenges ahead’ pretty quick - growing debt is hard to miss, eh - but something related to debt remains in our blind spot.

Yesterday I wrote about the blind spot, as seen in a recent letter to the editor of a local newspaper. (A link is provided below).

Below is another example of it.

In a news article entitled ‘Debt must be MPPs’ priority’, Gerry Macartney, CEO of London Chamber of Commerce, sees debt not only as a priority at least for Members of Parliament , but uses several phrases to describe how serious the situation is.

For example, when speaking of serious issues facing MPPs, he says that “chief among them is the 400-pound debt gorilla in the room...”, and every Canadian who has been in a room with, or who has played hockey against, a 400-pound gorilla knows how dangerous one can be in the corners. Why, the smell alone will knock you over!


[Photo link to blirk.net]

As well, we know things are serious when Macartney says “we have to start focusing seriously on debt and deficits - “an unprecedented $236 billion” with “$40 billion in annual borrowing (costs)” - or jobs and the economy may be rendered moot” and adds “we could easily slip into the same ugly predicament many European countries are facing.”

No kidding. Serious details every one.

However, in another paragraph a blind spot concerning debt is revealed once again.

He says, “Annual budget deficits... leave a huge burden for Ontario’s next generation who will face either drastic spending cuts, increased taxes, or a combination to get the province’s house in order.”

He sees that debt is high at the moment (it’s “serious” and “unprecedented”) but not high enough for tax increases for his readership. Future generations will face them, it sounds inevitable, but not today’s taxpayers. We’ll be okay. (Thank goodness we’re alive today!)

But, I have to ask. Why should our generation escape a tax increase and leave our unprecedented debt to the next generation? Why do we have such a blind spot about raising taxes?

Is it because our province’s house isn’t in enough of a mess yet?


["Pay down the gorilla, then feed the pig for tough times ahead": GH]

Is it because modern-day governments, businesses and households want to live like the proverbial grasshopper rather than the ant?

I recommend we take off our collective blinders and face the serious, unprecedented problem of debt head on, not leave it - as if it's inevitable - for our grandchildren. I would say a 0.5 to 5% tax increase spread out among home owners (from middle to high income), businesses and corporations

It’s time to step up and face the gorilla.

***

Here’s a challenge for you to answer.

How long do you think the blind spot will last?

Please click here to read “100 Challenges Ahead” 4a.

.

100 Challenges Ahead: 4a “Today’s blind spot about taxes”

Today’s generation can spot ‘challenges ahead’ around every corner, and one on many peoples’ minds is growing debt.

A recent letter to the editor offered grim details about Ontario’s debt:

“Ontario is indebted to the tune of $244 billion... taxpayers will be on the hook for almost $500 billion in eight years’ time... this year’s budget would need to be slashed by about 40% and left there for the next ten years in order for us to eliminate the current debt.” (J. Daubs, Oct. 14, London Free Press)

Grim details indeed. But Mr. Daub’s next sentences reveal he has a fairly common blind spot. Can you guess what it is?

“Young people in Ontario will not stick around to pick up the tab through higher taxes. As the young workforce leaves to escape higher taxes, the government revenues will dry up and all that will be left is a bloated, bankrupt public sector.”

Some astute readers will spot that Mr. Daubs says the public sector will be at fault for the mass exodus of workers in the future, but is blind to the fact that the private sector, with historically low tax rates, is not as great at job-creating as many suggest (it’s better at profit-taking) and must also share part of the blame. That, however, is not the blind spot I mean.

Please note: Daubs feels that the debt will become very high in the future and higher taxes are not only inevitable but will drive away our young workforce.

But... doesn’t he see that debt is large enough now to consider higher taxes? Are higher taxes only to be considered once the $244 billion debt reaches or exceeds $500 billion?


["Let's pay down debt today, then save for tough times": photo GH]

Perhaps taxes should be raised when the debt reaches $450 billion, or $400 billion. Perhaps the acceptable ceiling should be $350 or $300 billion. Maybe $250 billion is better, maybe even $200 or $150 billion.

I feel many of today’s taxpayers are blind to the need to raise taxes now. Leaving debt and inevitable higher taxes to future generations is definitely the wrong course in life.

Another example of modern day blindness to follow.

***

Please click here to read 100 Challenges Ahead 3.

.

100 Challenges Ahead: 3 “My house feels too big”

[Americans Thomas Sargent and Christopher Sims, recent Nobel Prize winners in economics have no easy answers to a global crisis one called simply “this mess.” Oct 13, London Free Press]

According to a report by TD Economics, “older Canadians are growing their debt loads faster than any other age group and retiring more indebted than ever.” (Oct. 12, London Free Press)

If I read the bar graph provided with the article correctly, and I’m very sure I did, in the last 10 years people aged 65 and older have increased their debt load by 160 per cent while their assets have grown by only 80 per cent.

If that troubling trend continues, “it could threaten their standard of living and exacerbate volatility in asset markets, pension fund deficits and declining employment pension coverage.”


["Many would be better off in a small house": photo GHarrison]

Many my age and older will one day face the ‘big house’ challenge, i.e., will be stuck inside a house that’s far too big to handle in a variety of ways, i.e., financially and physically just for starters.

The trend for the last 60 years has been toward bigger houses (“since the 1950s, a typical four-person family home has increased from 1,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet on average,” Oct.1, London Free Press), and many of today’s seniors were a part of the growing culture of big.

I feel many seniors are now trapped inside a big house, unable to make the necessary changes to a right-sized life-style.

Moving, duplexing to earn income, caring for the present house, etc., are now beyond the ability of many of them or much tougher due to the current recession.

Do you know someone who may feel like a prisoner in their own home? What can be done?

***

Please click here to read 100 Challenges Ahead: 2 “I won’t change”

.

100 Challenges Ahead: 2 “I won’t change”

["The cost of driving to work will rise. The price of going shopping for groceries and clothing will rise. The same can be said for going to the YMCA for exercise or movie theatre for entertainment." G.Harrison, Oct. 12, 2011]

Most people will have to face challenges associated with the rising price of gasoline, now and in the future, and some will respond by switching to a smaller car, others will call for more equitable sharing of limited, non-renewable resources, and others will respond with snippets from their personal philosophy of life, e.g., as follows:

“I don’t have to (change or share).”

“I don’t want to.”

“And I won’t.”

After six to seven decades of economic, financial and lifestyle growth, all of which was seemingly wrapped in the belief that it was without limits, there live among us a goodly percentage of people who feel or trust that life will go on and on as it ‘always has.’

I believe those who declare there is nothing much wrong with our current economic, financial and lifestyle models - and there is very little need for change - will make it more difficult than it already is to promote or actively seek change in the way families, homes, businesses and governments operate.

Please, don’t hold your breath waiting for a person with some degree of authority in a community, province, state or country to promote a retreat from the “growth without limits, culture of big” to a “live small and prosper” philosophy in order to conserve or equitably share natural resources.


And don’t expect an economic genius to come along anytime soon to figure out how to bring the price of fuel down or get everyone to adopt sound business or governmental policy. Americans Thomas Sargent and Christopher Sims, recent Nobel Prize winners in economics have no easy answers to a global crisis one called simply “this mess.” World-wide panics, crises “what’s going on in Europe... that’s all about expectations about what other people are going to do,” Sargent said in an interview. (Oct. 11, London Free Press)

What will you do? Change? Not change?


More challenges ahead.

***

Please click here to read 100 Challenges Ahead: “The high price of gasoline”

.