# When to take CPP article in the G&M by Rob Carrick



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

Interesting CPP withdrawal article in the G&M today by Rob Carrick chatting with Daryl Diamond who wrote Your Retirement Income Blueprint (good book-recommended). I'd link it but it's behind a paywall on their website.

A couple of key discussion points in the article are:

There is a lot of personal preference around comfort level in making the decision to take early or delay
Daryl Diamond's preference is to take CPP early
One reason to draw on CPP early are the poor rules around survivor benefits. Survivor benefits are modest in size. And you take a survivor benefits hit if it pushes you over the maximum CPP payment for an individual
A second reason to draw on CPP early is that you can potentially delay drawing from retirement savings and continue to grow them. However, your investments are obviously subject to continuing market and interest rate volatility. But your investments can be passed on versus the subpar survivor benefits.
A minor third point is that a higher CPP payment may push you into OAS clawback territory
You obviously get a larger monthly indexed payout by delaying. There is value in delaying for a larger monthly payout if you feel you haven't saved enough for retirement.

What I take from it is that if you have a large enough retirement portfolio, it isn't necessarily bad idea to take CPP early as it kind of mitigates the risk of dying early and not really benefiting, both personally and your spouse, from your contributions. I've still got over a decade to make this decision but I still struggle with taking a higher payout at 65 versus addressing mortality risk and taking at 60. I was leaning towards taking CPP at 65 but I might have been swayed back to 60. But I really have to see where I'm at (health, portfolio status, etc) at age 59 as a lot can change in a over a decade.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Thanks for the heads up on this milhouse, and a very good summary.
Not sure if it was mentioned that you can also defer cpp/oas until age 70 and gain an even higher indexed income if you wish. As you note, deferral is of most value to those who don't have enough/much other income. Unfortunately they may be the ones more likely to take cpp at 60.
We took ours early for the reasons you list.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

I looked at it a different way. 

As soon as I retired at 65 and stopped getting a paycheque, I started to draw down my RRSPs, but didn't apply for CPP. The amount I withdrew was roughly the same amount I would have gotten from CPP+OAS. 

Since at 71 you are forced to convert RRSP to RRIF and withdraw a yearly minimum amount, I figured that by delaying the CPP until the RRSPs had been significantly reduced I would lower the minimum RRIF withdrawal amount, and thereby maintain approximately the same income level for a long time, all the while staying in the lowest tax bracket. ( sorry for the run-on sentence ).

It looked doable on a spreadsheet, and so far seems to be working O.K. The spreadsheet calculated the point at which taking CPP in addition to the RRSP/RRIF drawdown plus projected 'other' income would not exceed the lowest tax bracket. 

To note... This only applies to the taxable income that goes to pay the bills. If one's lifestyle requires more than sustenance, it is also desirable to have a crap-load of money in non-registered accounts that buys the cars and pays for the vacations, etc.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Userkare

Interesting, Though If interest rates rise money would not grow tax free as long though taxes could rise as governments always wants more tax money


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

lonewolf :) said:


> Userkare
> 
> Interesting, Though If interest rates rise money would not grow tax free as long though taxes could rise as governments always wants more tax money


I can't control taxes, other than take advantage of any favourable tax laws as they come (TFSA ). If the mix between registered and non-registered is done correctly, I don't see a huge need to try to get high interest from the non-reg investments. Simple GIC or HISA is good enough, and with no risk. That's the 'other' income I factored into the spreadsheet as 4% of non-registered savings. 

We all sometimes get so hung up on maximizing ROI, that we forget to factor in the principal. For example, if you have a mix of $300K registered, and $700K un-registered savings, the income from CPP plus the RRSP/RRIF draw-down could pay living expenses, assuming the home is mortgage free. Spending an additional $25K/yr from the $700K would last 28 years. Starting at 70, you'd be 98 then, and probably not buying cars and travelling. Plus, by spending all your savings, you'd also be helping your heirs by reducing their estate tax! :biggrin:

Of course Y.R.M.V.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

milhouse said:


> ..... a higher CPP payment may push you into OAS clawback territory..


This is something to certainly consider for delaying both CPP and OAS. 

Those higher payouts at age 70 may be subjected to a 15% recovery clawback on every dollar over the OAS threshold.

ltr


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

like_to_retire said:


> This is something to certainly consider for delaying both CPP and OAS.
> 
> Those higher payouts at age 70 may be subjected to a 15% recovery clawback on every dollar over the OAS threshold.
> 
> ltr


and a clawback of 50% of every dollar over the GIS threshold.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

....when the govt offers me money...I take it!...


----------



## Dogger1953 (Dec 14, 2012)

OptsyEagle said:


> and a clawback of 50% of every dollar over the GIS threshold.


I think you mean 50% of every dollar under the GIS threshold. Once your income is over the GIS threshold you're already at zero GIS, so there's no more recovery beyond that (except for normal taxes) until you hit the OAS clawback threshold.


----------



## Dogger1953 (Dec 14, 2012)

milhouse said:


> Interesting CPP withdrawal article in the G&M today by Rob Carrick chatting with Daryl Diamond who wrote Your Retirement Income Blueprint (good book
> 
> I'd just like to comment on the 2nd reason (survivor benefits). The way that the retirement & survivor benefits are combined is grossly misunderstood, and it's not as simple as saying that you create more room for a survivor's pension by taking your own CPP early. Here's an article that I wrote on the subject: https://retirehappy.ca/cpp-survivor-benefits/


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

Dogger1953 said:


> milhouse said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting CPP withdrawal article in the G&M today by Rob Carrick chatting with Daryl Diamond who wrote Your Retirement Income Blueprint (good book
> ...


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

It is really good to get accurate information. There are many articles out there that only present half of the data,not to mention that some are biased, others just plain incorrect.

I took CPP early. Mine was a slightly different situation. The new rules were just coming into being. The penalty for early CPP was increasing . I did not have the full complement of years nor did I plan on having employment income again hence my averages would decrease if I waited another five years or so. I had a difficult time getting accurate information that took these types of situations, no doubt common to many at the time, into account. Most of the articles seemed to assume full/max participation and then calculated the breakevens based on the new regs.

I think that the danger in some of these articles is not understanding that the givens on which some are predicated may not be applicable to your specific situation.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

One thing to consider is your risk of dying early - are there any (genetic) conditions that predispose you to an "early exit"? Cancer, heart disease, lifestyle choices (smoking, sedentary lifestyles) and some other could also be considered before making this choice. If you expect a long life - go long on CPP (at 65/70), if not - take it early. I could make it to 82 yrs (based on mum and dad), in which case taking it at 65 makes sense, because the payout is 227K regardless whether I take it at 65 or 70!


----------



## BC Eddie (Feb 2, 2014)

My wife and I have healthy sized registered and non-registered investments but no company pension plans. So we decided to delay both CPP and OAS to age 70 as that maximizes our guaranteed, indexed pensions. We both are healthy and expect to live a long time (BTW I used several online tools that guesstimate how long you will live to help me decide). Now that we are within a couple of years to start receiving CPP/OAS the decision to delay still feels like the right one.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

BC Eddie said:


> My wife and I have healthy sized registered and non-registered investments but no company pension plans. So we decided to delay both CPP and OAS to age 70 as that maximizes our guaranteed, indexed pensions. We both are healthy and expect to live a long time (BTW I used several online tools that guesstimate how long you will live to help me decide). Now that we are within a couple of years to start receiving CPP/OAS the decision to delay still feels like the right one.


That's my approach too. I also have no DB pension, so have to depend on my own investments plus CPP and OAS. Deferring means I will have more inflation indexed, government guaranteed, lifetime income.

Deferring CPP & OAS is not about getting the most government benefits under average lifespan and economic conditions. It's about lessening the possibility of outliving your money if you live a long time and experience adverse economic conditions such as low market returns and/or high inflation. Consider it _long life insurance._


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Dogger1953 said:


> milhouse said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting CPP withdrawal article in the G&M today by Rob Carrick chatting with Daryl Diamond who wrote Your Retirement Income Blueprint (good book
> ...


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

milhouse said:


> Interesting CPP withdrawal article in the G&M today by Rob Carrick chatting with Daryl Diamond who wrote Your Retirement Income Blueprint (good book-recommended). I'd link it but it's behind a paywall on their website.
> 
> [*]One reason to draw on CPP early are the poor rules around survivor benefits. Survivor benefits are modest in size. And you take a survivor benefits hit if it pushes you over the maximum CPP payment for an individual
> 
> ...


----------



## Dogger1953 (Dec 14, 2012)

Mukhang pera said:


> Dogger1953 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the link to the article master dogger.
> ...


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Dogger1953 said:


> Retiredguy is correct, the amount of survivor's pension that your spouse will receive does NOT increase if you defer your CPP. It is based on your "calculated retirement pension", which is prior to any age-adjustment factor is applied to decrease or increase your retirement pension because you took it early or late.


Thank you both Retired and Dogger. That was my guess, but you have confirmed. We are talking small change anyways. As pointed out, survivor benefits are modest by any yardstick. Even receiving max CPP is a pretty small cartridge in one's retirement gun. It can almost be overlooked in the magazine.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

milhouse said:


> Interesting CPP withdrawal article in the G&M today by Rob Carrick chatting with Daryl Diamond who wrote Your Retirement Income Blueprint (good book-recommended). I'd link it but it's behind a paywall on their website...


Just to note, you should be able to view this article (Globe Investor, Globe & Mail, Sept. 30) via Pressreader by logging on to your local library website. We can, and we don't even have to pay for a library card.
The e-features that are available through your local library website are well worth checking out if you haven't already. Newspapers (3565) and magazines from around the world. And through ProQuest, the archived Globe and Mail, searchable from 1844 to 2009.

Added: I know everything depends on individual circumstances. From our perspective, and as noted in the article, one way of considering our early cpp, started as a couple at ages 60, is that from 60-65, it allows us to retain $70k of our own savngs that we don't need to spend ($13k/yr, incl growth at 4%, ignoring cpp col increases), and from 60-70 we keep $155k of our own savings. 
Whether I die early and my wife benefits from our larger personal savings or our estate ultimately benefits, or those savings are in effect used to 'top up' the reduced cpp amount for ~11yrs beginning age 70, it makes sense to us to keep our own savings longer.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Just to note, you should be able to view this article (Globe Investor, Globe & Mail, Sept. 30) via Pressreader by logging on to your local library website. We can, and we don't even have to pay for a library card.
> The e-features that are available through your local library website are well worth checking out if you haven't already. Newspapers (3565) and magazines from around the world. And through ProQuest, the archived Globe and Mail, searchable from 1844 to 2009.


Wow, A terrific tip. I'll need to update my library card & pw and then be good to go. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## PrairieGal (Apr 2, 2011)

Mukhang pera said:


> Thank you both Retired and Dogger. That was my guess, but you have confirmed. We are talking small change anyways. As pointed out, survivor benefits are modest by any yardstick. Even receiving max CPP is a pretty small cartridge in one's retirement gun. It can almost be overlooked in the magazine.


For some of us with small incomes it is one of the big guns.


----------



## BC Eddie (Feb 2, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> Thank you both Retired and Dogger. That was my guess, but you have confirmed. We are talking small change anyways. As pointed out, survivor benefits are modest by any yardstick. Even receiving max CPP is a pretty small cartridge in one's retirement gun. It can almost be overlooked in the magazine.


I guess you are a lot wealthier then my wife and I because the $45,000+ that my wife and I will get per year from deferred CPP+OAS sure seems like a lot more than a "small cartridge" to us.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

BC Eddie said:


> I guess you are a lot wealthier then my wife and I because the $45,000+ that my wife and I will get per year from deferred CPP+OAS sure seems like a lot more than a "small cartridge" to us.


Nope, not wealthy at all. But max CPP alone provides an income of only $1,114 per month, or about $13,300 per year, not the $45,000 of which you speak. THAT is my point. How many here can live on that? I am not talking about double dippers like you and your wife, who both appear to have accumulated max entitlement and also have the financial ability to defer, for a combined take of $45,000 a year (which includes OAS, which was not within the scope of my comment). 

So the situation of my wife and I is that she is much younger than I and, in whatever years we have left together, she will never qualify for either CPP or OAS. After Ontario grade 13, I spent 9 years at university, with limited earnings. So, while most of my earning years have seen me contribute the max to CPP, I won't have all the years of max contributions to qualify for the full pension. But I won't be too far off. However, even if I could receive the full 2017 benefit of $1,114 per month, that really is small potatoes for a couple to live on. All the same, it's a princely sum compared to what the CPP website (see link below) says most people actually get. There, it sets out that new beneficiaries as of July 2017 are getting $583 per month. That reflects an unfortunate reality that, for many, the idea of having a pension in old age is more illusory than real. It's knowing that fact that provides a reason for the existence of this forum. Most here recognize that they must depend upon themselves, not the government, to allow them to live in some comfort in old age.


https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/cpp-benefit/amount.html


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> I am not talking about double dippers like you and your wife,


That's not really fair. A double dipper is defined as someone who is receiving a gov't pension while still working for the gov't. CPP collected their payroll deductions for two individuals over the years. When it comes time to pay out the benefit, nobody can say the recipients aren't entitled to whatever amount.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Userkare said:


> That's not really fair. A double dipper is defined as someone who is receiving a gov't pension while still working for the gov't. CPP collected their payroll deductions for two individuals over the years. When it comes time to pay out the benefit, nobody can say the recipients aren't entitled to whatever amount.


I halfway expected to be taken to task for that comment. Sure enuff, so it came to pass. 

Puerile perhaps, but I decided to greet an unfair comment with an unfair comment. I made the point that a CPP payment of about 1100 bucks a month, for many, would not be a meaningful contribution to one's retirement. What came back at me was, in effect, "You must be rich to sneer at $45,000 a year." Was that a fair comment?


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

BC Eddie said:


> I guess you are a lot wealthier then my wife and I because the $45,000+ that my wife and I will get per year from deferred CPP+OAS sure seems like a lot more than a "small cartridge" to us.


Is the 45,000 + your age 65 or 70 amounts. I'm not interested because of the recent back & forths but interested in doing some "what ifs" for a couple doing as you are .... delaying, versus taking both at 65 and buying a joint annuity at 70 with your combined after tax proceeds. I know you both are going to live long but if either did pass away prematurely the loss of 1 OAS and some or all of the CPP would have a big hit on your household budget so I was thinking an annuity might work in this case. If you did want to provide me with your age 65 CPP amounts it would provide a real example for me to work with. (PS) I'm no expert but enjoy spread-sheeting these types of issues! (I'm thinking the 45k is your age 70 amount ?)


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

The Carrick article provided these amounts:
View attachment 16481


The age 70 maximum of $1582 x 12mos x2 for a couple would be $37,968.
But there are few couples that would reach these maximums.The CPP site notes that the average amount being paid to a 65 yr old this year is $653, not $1114 (so 59% of max)


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> The Carrick article provided these amounts:
> View attachment 16481
> 
> 
> ...


No sure if this was directed to me or not in response to my post above. What I'm interest in doing is getting two real CPP amounts from a couple, not just figuring max CPP. I'll use max OAS because that is pretty common and comparing, simply deferring to age 70 versus taking the after tax money beginning at 65 and buying a JL annuity at age 70. I'm thinking the annuity could provide a hedge against one partners (or in deed both) premature death and the loss of the enhanced OAS/CPP. Their is also CPP survivor benefit considerations and the life annuity could provide a guarantee period which neither OAS/CPP provide and which potentially could leave money for heirs.

I did some quick calcs and a couple with max OAS and each having 900 mth CPP - after tax, with a bit of investment added in could have more than 150K at age 70.


----------



## Joebaba (Jan 31, 2017)

Hey Dogger (if you’re still following this thread)…..

Assume I’m 65 today, and choose to delay CPP until age 70 - and assume I qualify for the maximum.
In 2022, do I get 1.42 times the maximum that existed in the year I was 65 (2017), or do I get 1.42 times the maximum in the year I turn 70 (2022)?

So assume I’m 65 today and the maximum is $13368. 
If I delay to 70, do I get 13368*1.42 ($18982)?
Or do I get 1.42 times the maximum in 2022 - which would likely be about 14759 (assuming 2% inflation). So 1.42 times 14759 - would be $20958.

Thanks,

Joe


----------



## Joebaba (Jan 31, 2017)

Hey Retiredguy,

I’ll take you up on that offer to do those calculations.
I too enjoy numbers, so I’d be interested to hear your results and compare them with my own.

I’d just like to hear back from Doug first regarding my query in post #30.
Once he replies, I’ll provide my numbers.

Joe


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> I halfway expected to be taken to task for that comment. Sure enuff, so it came to pass.
> 
> Puerile perhaps, but I decided to greet an unfair comment with an unfair comment. I made the point that a CPP payment of about 1100 bucks a month, for many, would not be a meaningful contribution to one's retirement. What came back at me was, in effect, "You must be rich to sneer at $45,000 a year." Was that a fair comment?


Perhaps you were provoked, but can't we all just get along?

You could understand BC Eddie's impression that you were rich..... "Mukhang Pera" is a Filipino word with no direct English translation. It is used to describe someone who has the propensity to acquire money, a worldly person, someone who values money and riches above everything else.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Joebaba said:


> Hey Retiredguy,
> 
> I’ll take you up on that offer to do those calculations.
> I too enjoy numbers, so I’d be interested to hear your results and compare them with my own.
> ...


Sure! Doug will likely answer as well but they use the YMPE and maximum for the year in which the pension is started. This also applies to those who start early at say; age 60, as they obviously don't know what the age 65 max pension will be. Interestingly for someone 65 in 2012 who delayed until age 70 - 2017 because of the way new pensions are calculated using the industrial wage index, versus the CPI indexing of pensions being paid they would get approx. 5.1% more plus the 42%. The trend of the industrial wage index has been higher than the CPI for the past 10 years. No guarantee it will continue.


----------



## Joebaba (Jan 31, 2017)

Hey RetiredGuy,

So my numbers are….

Me – currently 62 – latest CPP estimate from Service Canada (and from Holy Potato’s calculator) is $13,224 ($1,102 monthly).
My wife is 58 - $11,063 ($922 monthly).

Both will have max OAS at 65.

All four of our parents died at 79 - though no guarantees of course.

Our current plans are to take OAS at 65, and delay CPP to 70. 

Any other numbers you’d think important?

I’m interested to hear your results. I appreciate your effort.

Do you think we should start a new thread?

Joe

P.S. - I'm good with using inflation of 2% and investment returns of 5% before inflation (so essentially about 3% returns).

P.P.S. - when I said the latest CPP estimates, I mean those are the estimates if we take CPP at age 65.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Userkare said:


> Perhaps you were provoked, but can't we all just get along?
> 
> You could understand BC Eddie's impression that you were rich..... "Mukhang Pera" is a Filipino word with no direct English translation. It is used to describe someone who has the propensity to acquire money, a worldly person, someone who values money and riches above everything else.


Awww now Userkare. All just get along? Whatever for? I was getting ready to ask BC Eddie to step outside, where we could settle this like men! Come to think of it, I have an ancient pair of duelling pistols I inherited long ago. Oddly, both are missing their hammers (probably some guy's wife hid them 150 years ago), which i am sure greatly diminishes their antique value, but perhaps someone here on cmf with a metalworking hobby could fashion a new pair, then BC Eddie and I could put them to their intended purpose and settle this thing like gentlemen. Otherwise, we might have to resort to cow dung at 10 paces.

And yes, maybe BC Eddie speaks Tagalog and drew some inference from the "mukhang pera" handle. The most direct translation is, in fact, "moneyface", which does carry the meaning you have set out.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> .... But there are few couples that would reach these maximums.The CPP site notes that the average amount being paid to a 65 yr old this year is $653, not $1114 (so 59% of max)


Agreed that few couples will reach the maximum ... or at least few that I know. :biggrin:

I did notice that the heading for the column that has the $653 as the average was "Average amount *for new beneficiaries* (July 2017)". It would seem it tells about those coming on stream versus whatever is happening in the larger pot.

I'd have to find a definition as well as preferably independent numbers.


Cheers


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Joebaba said:


> Hey RetiredGuy,
> 
> So my numbers are….
> 
> ...




Hi Joe

What I did was assume you were both the same age and going to consider deferring both CPP and OAS.
I used your age 65 CPP $ amounts and the max age 65 OAS $ amount. CPP was increased by 42% to get the deferred age 70 amount and OAS was increased by 36%. (In addition to the indexing of 1.5% applied to both OAS and CPP. I used an Income tax rate of 30%

For the age 65 to 70 accumulations I used a net investment of 3.5% per year beginning at age 66.

By you both, deferring your CPP & OAS to age 70, the extra amount over and above what you would have received had you started them at 65 results in you and your wife receiving – after tax $11507. (Total combined) in your 71st year.

Had you both started your CPP & OAS at 65 and invested the after tax amount each year, you would have and control $145,000 at age 70.
With no further investment of the 145,000 or indexing of the 11507 we can see that things equal out after 12.6 years. (145000/11507 = 12.6) Provided you both live to 82.6 years.

I indexed (@ 1.5%) the deferred amount 11507 out to age 90, and I modeled the depleting investment of the 145000 @ (3.5% net after tax) (5% rate - 30% tax). Interestingly they both provided close to the same net dollars at approximately age 82.

In my opinion a major risk for couples relying on CPP/OAS is the early death of one partner which results in major loss to household income. There is no survivor benefit with OAS and the survivor benefits with CPP are poor, in my opinion. This is particularly so for you, as you both have strong pensions. In the case of either one of your deaths the survivor would simply get an amount raising their own pension equal to the then age 65 max. (Delaying CPP to 70 does not result in an increased survivor benefit.) Also, when the death occurs most spouses investments are transferred to the surviving spouse, so income splitting is lost and the survivor often pays a higher marginal rate on the inherited income. This can also result in the survivor losing some or all of their own OAS because of the clawback recovery tax. 

I think the bottom line is it depends on how long you both will live. If either one passes before 82 then the start at 65 accumulate/invest and draw down the accumulated invested amount, beginning at 70 may make sense. But if you are both going to live beyond 82 then the deferred to age 70 start certainly makes more sense. 

All ways as a caveat, people can get different results using different factors.

As for me I’ll soon be 65 and will start my CPP, as there is no additional survivor benefit by delaying. At 65 according to what I’ve read I have a 50% chance of reaching 81 and I’m not concerned about outliving my resources and needing longevity insurance.

Cheers…..!


----------



## Joebaba (Jan 31, 2017)

Hey RetiredGuy,

Thanks for that analysis.

I will probably now re-do my own analysis, and report back if I think my findings are significantly different from yours (I doubt they’ll be much different).

My high-level philosophy on CPP isn’t to “squeeze the most out of the program”, rather to take it “when it is of most use to you”.

For us, taking CPP early, wouldn’t change our lifestyle – rather, it would simply mean having a bigger bank account. 
But, delaying CPP, and having an indexed, bigger payout while in our 80s, and maybe 90s, might mean being able to afford a nicer nursing home, or even paying for better home care for a few years and staying longer in our own home.
So I do sort of see it as longevity insurance – not meaning trying to prevent “running out of money”, but rather allowing for a nicer lifestyle should we live a long time.

So in a nutshell – I think the money will be of more use to us later rather than sooner.

As to your thoughts on taxation if one spouse dies early – I do understand the issue of having all the registered monies ending up in one pot. We are in fact trying to slowly melt down our registered funds over the next 10 years, so as to try to avoid that issue a bit. That also minimizes the usefulness of income splitting.

And while losing $14,000 annually of CPP/OAS (my rough estimates if I die early) would certainly hurt, I actually feel our expenses would also drop significantly if one of us dies – travel would drop, we’d need to save half as much for replacement vehicles, spending would drop 25%-ish, one less TFSA contribution – so many of the bigger expenses would drop significantly or disappear. Now that wouldn’t be true for all couples, but I know myself, and I know my wife, and it would be true for us. And if the surviving spouse met someone new, maybe the spending would ramp back up, but that’s their issue to deal with then I suppose.

Anyway, thanks again for doing that analysis – I’ll report back if I have anything new to add.

Joe


----------



## BC Eddie (Feb 2, 2014)

edited


----------



## BC Eddie (Feb 2, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> Awww now Userkare. All just get along? Whatever for? I was getting ready to ask BC Eddie to step outside, where we could settle this like men! Come to think of it, I have an ancient pair of duelling pistols I inherited long ago. Oddly, both are missing their hammers (probably some guy's wife hid them 150 years ago), which i am sure greatly diminishes their antique value, but perhaps someone here on cmf with a metalworking hobby could fashion a new pair, then BC Eddie and I could put them to their intended purpose and settle this thing like gentlemen. Otherwise, we might have to resort to cow dung at 10 paces.
> 
> And yes, maybe BC Eddie speaks Tagalog and drew some inference from the "mukhang pera" handle. The most direct translation is, in fact, "moneyface", which does carry the meaning you have set out.


I don't see how my original comment was "an unfair comment". Me thinks thy is too thin skinned. I was merely pointing out the fact that a deferred maxed CPP is not insignificant as your original post had claimed. In hindsight I should not have included OAS as that confused the issue but I still contend that the maxed CPP alone, at approx $33,000 per year, is still significant. 

What I really don't understand is your extreme reactions to my comment of fact. Were they just failed attempts at humor our do you have serious anger issues?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

BC Eddie said:


> I don't see how my original comment was "an unfair comment". Me thinks thy is too thin skinned. I was merely pointing out the fact that a deferred maxed CPP is not insignificant as your original post had claimed. In hindsight I should not have included OAS as that confused the issue but I still contend that the maxed CPP alone, at approx $33,000 per year, is still significant.
> 
> What I really don't understand is your extreme reactions to my comment of fact. Were they just failed attempts at humor our do you have serious anger issues?


And I'll stand by my comment that a single maxed CPP payment of about $1,100 a month won't take one very far.

And just what, pray tell, are my "extreme reactions" to your comments? It was you who took it upon yourself to snipe at my comment about $1,100 a month being fairly insignificant in the overall scheme of things, raising the ante to $45,000. Not a fair comparison at all. I replied to you in a soft-spoken manner in post #24. No “extreme reaction” at all. Not a whit of “extreme”. 

Then Userkare got offended by my offhand “double dipper” comment, not that it was directed to that honourable member. So, I explained, even being willing to make a self-effacing comment about “puerile” conduct, which I though should smooth ruffled feathers and render the matter at an end. 

Userkare was not content to leave things lie, suggesting we should all just get along. I had not realized that a storm was brewing, or that anyone was failing to get along. So I made what even the least astute member of this board should see as intended humour about a duel. 

Now today, not wanting to just let it pass, or laugh at the humour, you decide to fan the flames by talking about “serious anger issues”. I suggest you look inward first. If anger issues are evident, they are yours.


----------



## BC Eddie (Feb 2, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> And I'll stand by my comment that a single maxed CPP payment of about $1,100 a month won't take one very far.


Not wanting to fan the flames any more I will just add that I am in receipt of a letter from Canada Services stating that I will receive $1547.06 per month when my deferred pension starts. Note that this amount will be in addition to the $275 per month I have already elected to receive from US Social Security for the years I worked in the US and did not contribute to CPP.

The CPP amount closely matches the figures calculated for me by Dogger ( I highly recommend him) back in 2014. 

This is my last post on the subject.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

^not sure why you would refrain from further posting. I haven’t much to contribute to this thread but I have read every post. I found your posts to be informative. CPP is a significant source of retirement income for most Canadians, particularly in light of the decline of DB pensions and low RSP contribution rates.

My friend works at Service Canada. Much of her job involves working with immigrant couples who are horrified to find out that they won’t each receive max CPP and OAS. In some cases they have very little else to fall back on. People can be surprisingly ignorant when it comes to government benefits.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

BC Eddie said:


> Not wanting to fan the flames any more I will just add that I am in receipt of a letter from Canada Services stating that I will receive $1547.06 per month when my deferred pension starts. Note that this amount will be in addition to the $275 per month I have already elected to receive from US Social Security for the years I worked in the US and did not contribute to CPP.
> 
> The CPP amount closely matches the figures calculated for me by Dogger ( I highly recommend him) back in 2014.
> 
> This is my last post on the subject.


Not sure why your comment should fan any flames. The info in your letter is non-controversial and is essentially available online from the site for which I provided the following url:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/cpp-benefit/amount.html

That site shows the max CPP pension in 2017 at $1,114, just as I said. _Deferred_ max is 42% more, consonant with what you said.

What remains unclear to me is why you sought to inject yourself into a dialogue I started with Dogger. I asked him about survivor benefits - and survivor benefits only in relation to my situation - and he provided a prompt and courteous answer, for which I thanked him. That should have been the end of the matter, but you saw fit to get in a huff about aside comment I made, not directed to you or anyone else. Plainly, my comment made you angry and you were not content to let it pass. Yet you are the one calling _me_ out has having having "serious anger issues". 

There is hardly an occasion when I am reading posts here on cmf (and on other forums of which I am a member) were I do not read a post with some content with which i disagree. Unless directed to me, or somehow involving me, I simply ignore such material. Why should I tell the poster what I think, uninvited? The exception to that would be, I suppose, where a member has asked a question, or sought advice, and I see a response they have received as manifestly incorrect. Then I might post a different answer or opinion, explaining where I differ, and why. But I see no need to adopt the role of forum thought policeman.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Personally, I hope the forum remains a place where people will interject their opinions into an existing discussions without retaliation. I’m all in favour of spirited debate and good natured teasing but our shared goal should always be to encourage participation. 

If you have something to say - then say.


----------



## cedebe (Feb 1, 2012)

olivaw said:


> ^not sure why you would refrain from further posting. I haven’t much to contribute to this thread but I have read every post. I found your posts to be informative. CPP is a significant source of retirement income for most Canadians, particularly in light of the decline of DB pensions and low RSP contribution rates.
> 
> My friend works at Service Canada. Much of her job involves working with immigrant couples who are horrified to find out that they won’t each receive max CPP and OAS. In some cases they have very little else to fall back on. People can be surprisingly ignorant when it comes to government benefits.


Wow! Where are they getting the impression that they'd be receiving full CPP? Esp. if they spent a significant amount of years working outside of Canada prior to arriving? (I'm thinking of people coming over in their mid or late 30s...)


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

cedebe said:


> Wow! Where are they getting the impression that they'd be receiving full CPP? Esp. if they spent a significant amount of years working outside of Canada prior to arriving? (I'm thinking of people coming over in their mid or late 30s...)


From what she says, it seems that some people come from countries that calculate seniors benefits differently and assume that Canada will use the same system. They expect $1100 CPP and roughly $560 OAS. I was chatting with a friend from Brazil last year and he thought I was full of it when I tried to tell him that ten years in Canada would not entitle him to maximum OAS. I suggested that he talk to Services Canada but I don’t think that he did. Hopefully he checks in with them before retiring.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

olivaw said:


> From what she says, it seems that some people come from countries that calculate seniors benefits differently and assume that Canada will use the same system. They expect $1100 CPP and roughly $560 OAS. I was chatting with a friend from Brazil last year and he thought I was full of it when I tried to tell him that ten years in Canada would not entitle him to maximum OAS. I suggested that he talk to Services Canada but I don’t think that he did. Hopefully he checks in with them before retiring.



If you have 10 years in Canada, have never contributed to CPP and have no other income you'll effectively get what I'll call super GIS which effective gives them the same amount .... net money as someone who has 40 years in Canada and no other income.

$1459.97 Per month. OAS & GIS with no other income.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> Then Userkare got offended by my offhand “double dipper” comment, not that it was directed to that honourable member. So, I explained, even being willing to make a self-effacing comment about “puerile” conduct, which I though should smooth ruffled feathers and render the matter at an end.


Not offended, I just said "it wasn't really fair" to call a couple who have both worked and contributed to CPP "double dippers" because they each receive a benefit. Double dipping is when *one *person collects from two sources. Double dipping has the connotation of being somehow wrong, even though it's perfectly legitimate to be working and also collect CPP..




> Userkare was not content to leave things lie, suggesting we should all just get along..


Oh, I thought I was responding to a direct question..



Mukhang pera said:


> " Was that a fair comment?


I guess it was a rhetorical question then. eaceful:


----------



## cedebe (Feb 1, 2012)

olivaw said:


> From what she says, it seems that some people come from countries that calculate seniors benefits differently and assume that Canada will use the same system. They expect $1100 CPP and roughly $560 OAS. I was chatting with a friend from Brazil last year and he thought I was full of it when I tried to tell him that ten years in Canada would not entitle him to maximum OAS. I suggested that he talk to Services Canada but I don’t think that he did. Hopefully he checks in with them before retiring.


Thanks for the reply. I wonder, though, if those other countries in question would be doling out equal benefits to immigrants as they do to their citizens that have worked a lifetime in their home country. If so, time to consider putting my other citizenship into play. ;P


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Retiredguy said:


> If you have 10 years in Canada, have never contributed to CPP and have no other income you'll effectively get what I'll call super GIS which effective gives them the same amount .... net money as someone who has 40 years in Canada and no other income.


edited


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Thanks Retiredguy. I was unaware of super GIS. I am unsure if my friend would qualify because he has a rental property and 10 years of CPP. He had some savings but they were mostly wiped out during his recent unemployment.


----------

