# Normal or "legal" retirement age



## jlunfirst (1 mo ago)

A bit hard to interpret this chart without knowing the legal age /country. I'm surprised by Denmark:


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It isn't accurate as the legal age, because French President Macron is meeting opposition from labor for wanting to raise the legal age from 62 to 64.









Macron’s Government Unveils Plan to Make French Work Longer


Emmanuel Macron’s government presented a plan to gradually raise France’s minimum retirement age to 64 by 2030 from 62, sparking anger among labor unions who immediately called for strikes to protest the reform.




www.bloomberg.com


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

Is there a definition somewhere that tells what the difference "normal" and "legal" retirement ages?


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

sags said:


> It isn't accurate as the legal age, because French President Macron is meeting opposition from labor for wanting to raise the legal age from 62 to 64 ...


This chart seems to have closer to current and what is being proposed.










It seems Denmark is currently close to age 65 and is moving towards age 75. France shows as age 65, which Bloomberg says is 62.

It seems a bit inconsistent but I haven't dug out the full details though.


Cheers


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I do not know what normal or legal means.

I know people who have retired at 52. Others still working in their 70's. DB's are few and far between now however many existing one focus maximum benefits on years of service or a combination. not age. My DB was based on retirement at age 62. CPP can pay out from ages 60 to 70. OAS from 65-70.

For many there are only two parameters. When they can afford to retire and when they actually retire.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

ian said:


> I do not know what normal or legal means.


Not well defined parameters I gather. I guess in Canada legal would refer to when one is first able to receive OAS so that is hardly a truely defining line. The normal here is likely just based on surverys.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

There is no "legal" age for retirement in Canada. However, it would be considered "illegal" (in the eyes of the laws, not some entity or someone else) to force someone to retire at age 65, 70 or any age for that matter. 

As for the "normal" retirement age, ask Mr. Vettese, the mathematical expert on life expectancy. That "age" retirement goal post keeps changing depending on which political party is in charge or who pays him to say what.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There used to be mandatory retirement at age 65 in Canada, but that was removed years ago. I remember people forced to retire at work who weren't happy about it.

Fred Vetesse is pretty much in the delay all benefits and work until you drop camp.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Those kinds of charts are used by those who advocate governments reduce spending by raising the qualification age, as proof people are delaying retirement anyways.

What the charts don't show is if people are working longer WHILE they are collecting government benefits.

That is entirely different than forcing people to work because they have no benefits yet and can't afford to stop working.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Denmark's retirement age on average has risen from 63 to 65 over the past years. I don't know where age 75 comes from.

Denmark: average retirement age 2022 | Statista


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

ian said:


> I do not know what normal or legal means.
> 
> I know people who have retired at 52. Others still working in their 70's. DB's are few and far between now however many existing one focus maximum benefits on years of service or a combination. not age. My DB was based on retirement at age 62. CPP can pay out from ages 60 to 70. OAS from 65-70.
> 
> For many there are only two parameters. When they can afford to retire and when they actually retire.


I would add a third parameter.

Forced to retire due to poor health or unemployment. Sadly, some don't get to choose when they retire. Not sure if this was included in your second parameter of when they actually retire.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> There used to be mandatory retirement at age 65 in Canada, but that was removed years ago. I remember people forced to retire at work who weren't happy about it.
> 
> *Fred Vetesse is pretty much in the delay all benefits and work until you drop camp.*


 ... pretty much but if you paid him "enough (aka handsomely)", he can change that age to something else to better fit you.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> There is no "legal" age for retirement in Canada ...


Which is one of the factors of why I am wondering what the OP or where ever the title "Norman or "legal" retirement age" means by these two terms.




Beaver101 said:


> As for the "normal" retirement age, ask Mr. Vettese, the mathematical expert on life expectancy. That "age" retirement goal post keeps changing depending on which political party is in charge or who pays him to say what.


Personally ... for "normal retirement age", I am more likely to care about the age that a reduction to what's been earned will apply to the private/public pension that is in effect when I retire.

Which might be the same or different than the OP's title is about.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

sags said:


> There used to be mandatory retirement at age 65 in Canada, but that was removed years ago. I remember people forced to retire at work who weren't happy about it ...


Sure ... though some at work who are working past 65 say they are not happy they will have the negative parts with no positive parts by continuing to work. Specifically, they have to keep paying into the pension while losing RRSP contribution room but the payout will not be increasing.


Cheers


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eclectic21 said:


> Which is one of the factors of why I am wondering what the OP or where ever the title "Norman or "legal" retirement age" means by these two terms.


 ... well, somebody got the 2 terms mixed up.



> Personally ... for "normal retirement age", I am more likely to care about the age that a reduction to what's been earned will apply to the private/public pension that is in effect when I retire.
> 
> Which might be the same or different than the OP's title is about.
> 
> Cheers


 .. so in effect, it's different for "everyone" literally for every individual. Just because Joe down the street has retired from working doesn't mean you should too or that Joe wants to work 'til he drops doesn't mean you do to. 

You do what's best for you and all those stats are nothing but noise. The worst part are the so-called "experts" like the named-one who gets paid to keep spouting that noise if not misleading others to follow the herd.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eclectic21 said:


> Sure ... though some at work who are working past 65 say they are not happy they will have the negative parts with no positive parts by continuing to work. Specifically, they have to keep paying into the pension while losing RRSP contribution room but the payout will not be increasing.
> 
> Cheers


 ... for some, money isn't the sole motivation for continuing to work and if it is - see below. 

Now what's wrong with paying aka participating more into a private pension (if one is lucky enough to be in one now)? Besides, wasn't it recently that CPP (public pension) are providing enhancements so there's one positive from a money/pension POV. 

Anyhow, for someone who is so focused about the money aspect as to whether to work or not in retirement age, then that's sad.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Eclectic21 said:


> Is there a definition somewhere that tells what the difference "normal" and "legal" retirement ages?
> 
> 
> Cheers


Ha. Seriously.

I would say "traditional" retirement is an age range between 60-65. 

You can get CPP at age 60 but with reductions. 

Anything significantly less than age 60, is early retirement. 
Anything after age 65 is simply retired later. 

That's kinda my frame of reference.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... so in effect, it's different for "everyone" literally for every individual.


Where "normal" means the age the pension no longer reduces the credits earned, it is the same for everyone in the plan.

Whether the individual retires at or above that age or below it for that particular pension, is different for everyone.





Beaver101 said:


> ... Just because Joe down the street has retired from working doesn't mean you should too or that Joe wants to work 'til he drops doesn't mean you do to.
> 
> You do what's best for you and all those stats are nothing but noise.


Regardless of what someone else does ... I expect few will want to have their pension reduced by 20% by retiring before the "normal retirement age" of the pension plan.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ...Now what's wrong with paying aka participating more into a private pension (if one is lucky enough to be in one now)?
> 
> Anyhow, for someone who is so focused about the money aspect as to whether to work or not in retirement age, then that's sad.


Perhaps you did not understand what the complain was?

*Option One*
Retire at normal retirement age in the private pension plan and collect pension.

*Option Two*
Continue working for five more years and pay thousands a year into the private pension each year then retire five years later.

Regardless of the option chosen, the private pension pays $x each month. The only difference is the $x being paid cost 5 x the thousands of dollars contributions more.


For someone funding their retirement from their RRSP, it would be like seeing all the investments bought in the five years of extra work being a total loss (i.e. RRSP value five years later is the same despite during the five years of contributions).


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

My Own Advisor said:


> ... I would say "traditional" retirement is an age range between 60-65 ...That's kinda my frame of reference.


So is the chart using your frame of reference across many countries?


Cheers


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I retired at 58/59. My father retired at 59. 

So this was a 'normal' retirement age for me.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eclectic21 said:


> Perhaps you did not understand what the complain was?


 ... why is that a complaint when you're in control of "when you want to retire" or "desist contributing to the pension"? I can see a complain or a valid one if you're not in control of your retirement date. See below for explanation.

*



Option One

Click to expand...

*


> Retire at normal retirement age in the private pension plan and collect pension.


 ... no, you can get the boot from your employer anytime so what's a "normal" retirement age? Moreover, even you do, doesn't mean you can't collect your private pension ... just that you have to follow the pension rules to collect it at age 65 at earliest say. The public sector has an even lower age of 55 + years of service (for example).

*



Option Two

Click to expand...

*


> Continue working for five more years and pay thousands a year into the private pension each year then retire five years later.


 ... if you choose to "work" as you enjoy it, then well, you have to pay into it if the pension plan says so. Besides, you're earning pension credits, no? I mean you can't have your icing and cake at the same time. Being employed but want to retire aka stop working at the same time so you can collect your pension early.



> Regardless of the option chosen, the private pension pays $x each month. The only difference is the $x being paid cost 5 x the thousands of dollars contributions more.


 ...well, those are the rules. No one says you have to work that extra 5 years and contribute that extra 5 years either.




> For someone funding their retirement from their RRSP, it would be like seeing all the investments bought in the five years of extra work being a total loss (i.e. RRSP value five years later is the same despite during the five years of contributions).
> 
> Cheers


 ... you can't make a comparison between an RRSP (individual retirement plan) and a private pension (your employer's retirement plan). The former you're in control, the latter you ain't.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Ya, age 65 seems "normal" for the most part.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Okay man, if you want to retire normally at age 65, then do so. But then I bet not.


----------

