# Continuing to work into my 70s



## naysmitj (Sep 16, 2014)

At the age of 69 I continue to really enjoy my life at work and, barring any severe health issues, I have no plans to leave the workplace for another 3 to 5 years. 
The issue I have with the rules in Canada is that by the age of 71, I am left with little in the way of options for continuing to save in my RRSP. I have to start withdrawing from my RIFs and I can no longer defer CPP and OAS.
I can not collect OAS because it will just all be clawed back so it is pointless to even file for it. 
My only thought is to wait till I do stop working then file for OAS in the January of the following year and make it retroactive by the one year allowed.
With the current improved health of people in their late 60s and early to mid 70s it seems to me that the government needs to modify the requirements as they apply to age enforcements and retirement savings.
Am I still in the vast minority when looking at the age to stop working?
By the way I do not have any type of funded pension plan, so we will have to fund our own lifestyles after I stop working.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Looks like you are in the minority.

The 2015 numbers had 5.9% of seniors worked all year, full time or about 1 million of the 17.2 million employed.
I focused on the full time employed numbers as you mentioned that OAS is completely clawed back.


Cheers

*PS*
It is confusing and may take some more digging. One source says 5.9% employed full time while another says that 1.1 million reported working, including part time where only about 30% or 330K were full time workers.

I am not sure why the same source would have articles with such different numbers.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I think the OP just has to suck it up and recognize that certain things have to happen at some point in time. There are a lot of us with fully clawed back OAS and no one should be upset about it. OAS is really (should only be) a social program (safety net) for those who don't have the resources, e.g. $50-60k annual income, to live a middle class retirement. It should have never become a real/perceived entitlement.

The best I can suggest is for the OP to do as suggested, apply for OAS once s/he stops working and ask for the one year of retroactivity. As for the RRSP, if the OP has not been fully utilizing TFSA room, roll as much of the mandated minimum RRIF withdrawals when that happens in 3 years (year of turning 72 is first year of mandated withdrawal) into his/her TFSA. 

P.S. The few people* I know who are still actively employed in their professions into their '70s and in some cases, their '80s do not be-grudge the loss of OAS, or high marginal rates paid on CPP income. After all, these professionals are working for the love of what they are doing, not because of the money.

* A few doctors, also a few engineering project engineering types all working for the joy of it.......


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

The CRA and early retirees love guys like you. The more you leave on the table the better for all of us.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I have always said that since we have a large budget deficit, one of the things that should be done (among many things) is change the mandatory withdrawals from age 71 to age 65. I would imagine that change would hit many more people in the OP position. I am not trying to single them out but basically looking to get, what is owed to the taxpayer, a little sooner. Since most people retire before age 71, the only thing deferring the withdrawal age does is allow them longer tax deferral. If we had a budget surplus, perhaps that would be OK, but in a deficit position, I think the tax payer should be given the money owed to them a little quicker. Anyway, politically what I suggest would be political suicide as would many of the other fairer changes that I think would help our country's finances.

All that said, I would ask the OP if he happens to have a younger spouse so as to set up a spousal RRSP. The age limit on contributions to that is age 71 of the spouse, not the contributor. 

The other option that he can contemplate, in the year he turns 71, is to utilize the "penalty tax strategy". That is where he waits until December, in the year he turns 71 to change over his RRSP to a RRIF. He makes an over-contribution to his RRSP for his estimated amount of contribution room he will be allocated in January. He then changes his RRSP to a RRIF, right after he makes this last contribution. He of course has to pay a 1% penalty for the over-contributed amount he made in December, minus $2,000 allowed, but that penalty stops in January. He then deducts that contribution on his tax return, in the following year (the year he turns 72). 

This may cost him 1% in penalties but save him 50% in tax and perhaps 15% of OAS, etc.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Dangerous territory in which you tread.... I am agnostic on any changes to the RRIF schedule but I am adamant that our governments need to get their fiscal houses in order. There are actually no good reasons for running deficits in good economic times. Governments simply spend too much of the discretionary spend on graft/bribery projects in governing MP ridings and/or partisan political policy activities.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

If all of your OAS will be clawed back, that comes at a threshold of over $125,000 per year. Plus you continue to contribute to RRSP's and are not collecting CPP. You're better off than most people.

I retired at 53 with a yearly income that's a fraction of where OAS begins to claw back (never mind clawing ALL of it back) so I can't relate in the slightest to your financial situation except to say that you're not going to live forever so why not enjoy some of what you've saved over the years? You must have some interests outside of working that you can devote more time and energy to. I retired at 53 hoping for 20 good years before something goes wrong.

By age 75 most people dramatically slow down and by the time they're 80 the percentage of active people is very low, but even if they're still healthy they don't have a lot of energy. The reality is that at age 69 it's very likely that you will only have 5 - 10 good years left no matter how good you feel today. Don't be fooled by the outliers.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Energy levels definitely diminish even if good health remains. I definitely feel dramatic difference between retirement at 57 and today at 70. Spouse will need hip replacement soon too.

I am hoping for 5 more years of overseas travel and then I won't want to get on long haul flights any more. Heck, I hate them now. By 80, one may not be able to afford the travel insurance any more either.

To each their own though. Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett are still going strong. Whatever motivates one to get out of bed each morning.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

What age to retire at and why will differ by individual but some general issues do apply.

It isn't just about money, it's also about what you want to do with your time. When someone writes that they are happy to work, I personally find that amazing. Even though I did not dislike the work I did when I had to work for a living, there were always other things I would have enjoyed doing more than working. In other words, given a choice I would prefer to not work at any age and so my goal was to retire as soon as possible. I suppose if someone has no interests in life outside of work, they would see it differently of course.

Prairie Guy has also given a very real issue to consider. Age is also a factor in how much you can do and enjoy in a given amount of time if only from a physical aspect. I maintain that every year before age 60 that someone has to enjoy in retirement is worth as much as 5 years after age 65. Not only do you become less physically able, you also become less emotionally able. What I mean by that is that you become less 'willing' to cope with things as you get older. For example, flying cattle class transatlantic was something I didn't even give a second thought when I was younger but now it is simply unacceptable. The stresses of travel become harder to cope with over time and if travel is in your plans for the future at all, you are not going to be doing in your mid to late 70s what you would have happily done in your early 60s.

Again though, if someone has no interests in life outside of work (and I recognize such people exist), the only real issue of aging they will face is being forced to quit at some point due to their physical inability to continue. But IF you have other interests naysmitj and an intention to pursue some of those interests after retiring, you may be fooling yourself as to how able to do so you will be when you finally retire.


----------



## naysmitj (Sep 16, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> I think the OP just has to suck it up and recognize that certain things have to happen at some point in time. There are a lot of us with fully clawed back OAS and no one should be upset about it. OAS is really (should only be) a social program (safety net) for those who don't have the resources, e.g. $50-60k annual income, to live a middle class retirement. It should have never become a real/perceived entitlement.
> 
> The best I can suggest is for the OP to do as suggested, apply for OAS once s/he stops working and ask for the one year of retroactivity. As for the RRSP, if the OP has not been fully utilizing TFSA room, roll as much of the mandated minimum RRIF withdrawals when that happens in 3 years (year of turning 72 is first year of mandated withdrawal) into his/her TFSA.
> 
> ...


You are of course correct, OAS in itself is, from my perspective, just an example of the the current age discrimination that the government is holding over seniors who do not want to stop working for what ever reason. 
I do not believe it is fair that seniors over 71 are subjected to age discrimination when it comes to the opportunity to continue to work and contribute to CPP and RRSPs or an equal opportunity to delay OAS beyond 70 with incremental increases as it is before 70. I have no financial problems paying my own way, but I do object to being barred from fully taking advantage of government programs. I am sure that when my grand children are in their 70's and are looking at a median life expectancy approaching 90 that the government will be financially forced to change the minimum retirement age. It is one of the reasons the conservatives had changed OAS from 65 to 67. The Lib's of course changed it back, which is just buying votes with our money once again.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

I think it's refreshing that some folks enjoy work, and want to continue to work and, in some cases, pass on some wisdom and know-how to the younger generation. Having read your post, I hope that you will be able to work as long as it brings rewards and enjoyment. 

In Ontario, recently, there was a headline that identified older professors in Ontario universities with "grey greed" - drawing down very large 6 figure pensions while simultaneously continuing to work full-time and pulling in large 6 figure salaries as well. 

I realise that you do not fit this description, but, these kinds of exceptional and likely more rare cases may point to the need for some kind of response from universities. It would be quite stressful / difficult for younger, talented academics to move into a good job when many are filled by older professors who have been working since the 1960's. Not saying that they should get rid of them - just develop a way for some succession to take place that is more reasonable that the status quo.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> ... It isn't just about money, it's also about what you want to do with your time. When someone writes that they are happy to work, I personally find that amazing. Even though I did not dislike the work I did when I had to work for a living, there were always other things I would have enjoyed doing more than working. In other words, given a choice I would prefer to not work at any age and so my goal was to retire as soon as possible.
> 
> I suppose if someone has no interests in life outside of work, they would see it differently of course ...


Or are you simply projecting your situation where interests and work are not aligned to effectively be the same thing?

I know some who want to work until they drop dead because the like the status or don't seem to know how to change. Others have managed to combine their interests and work into being the same thing.

Is a painter who is painting in the 90's someone who must have no interests beyond their "work" of painting?


Cheers


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> Is a painter who is painting in the 90's someone who must have no interests beyond their "work" of painting?


I think that is an extreme example. I know several painters and they have low expectations to survive on that income. Now let's talk about lawyers who love their work. Unless they are trial lawyers, that is very rare. In the case of LTA, he enjoyed his job because he was good at it, but he had no illusions about loving it.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Anyway, to the point of the OP, the government would love to not "age discriminate" as you put it, but they really do not have any choice. They have to get their tax revenue at some point and decided that at death was too late. That I agree. They then looked at when the lion's share of Canadians are retired and even added a few years after that and came up with age 71. That is not age discriminating. That is a situation where you find that you are an outlier or exception to things. Those are always unfortuneate but also unavoidable.

I am sure they would prefer to offer the ability to say "if you are still working you are not subjected to mandatory RRIF withdrawals", BUT if they attempted that the abuse would be rampant. I have been retired for years but on paper I am sure I could figure out a way to still look like I am working. A person that owned a corporation would never need to look retired and could easily show themselves to be still working and consequently be able to defer their withdrawals indefinitely. That also would not be fair but would definitely become much more costly to them. So they were forced to simply pick an age. As I said previously, I have always wondered why they did not just pick age 65, like a lot pensions and other programs.

So in essence, if I were you I would be less angry about what happens to you when you turn age 71 and more pleased with the fact that it did not happen much earlier. That is how I would look at it, anyway. No one is telling you to stop working. They are just telling you that it is time you paid the taxes you owe. Your choice to retire should not affect when the taxpayers get the money you owe them.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

dubmac said:


> I think it's refreshing that some folks enjoy work, and want to continue to work and, in some cases, pass on some wisdom and know-how to the younger generation. Having read your post, I hope that you will be able to work as long as it brings rewards and enjoyment.
> *
> In Ontario, recently, there was a headline that identified older professors in Ontario universities with "grey greed" - drawing down very large 6 figure pensions while simultaneously continuing to work full-time and pulling in large 6 figure salaries as well. *
> 
> I realise that you do not fit this description, but, these kinds of exceptional and likely more rare cases may point to the need for some kind of response from universities. It would be quite stressful / difficult for younger, talented academics to move into a good job when many are filled by older professors who have been working since the 1960's. Not saying that they should get rid of them - just develop a way for some succession to take place that is more reasonable that the status quo.


 ... and then it's not the money 'cause they just love their jobs so much.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ... and then it's not the money 'cause they just love their jobs so much.


Take away the money and I bet the love of the job diminishes considerably. For most people the love of their job is a combination of many things, but the money is almost always one of them.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

naysmitj said:


> ...
> The issue I have with the rules in Canada is that by the age of 71, I am left with little in the way of options for continuing to save in my RRSP. I have to start withdrawing from my RIFs and I can no longer defer CPP and OAS.
> I can not collect OAS because it will just all be clawed back so it is pointless to even file for it.
> My only thought is to wait till I do stop working then file for OAS in the January of the following year and make it retroactive by the one year allowed.
> ... By the way I do not have any type of funded pension plan, so we will have to fund our own lifestyles after I stop working.


RRSP is not a tax avoidance plan, it is a tax deferral plan. At some point withdrawals have to be made and taxed as income. The rules about this are clear and are declared up front. RRIF income after age 65 is eligible for the pension income deduction, so there is some tax benefit to taking it. It is also eligible for pension income splitting, if that would be applicable to you. 
I would not personally recommend delaying filing for OAS beyond 70 just because it will be taxed back. You're creating a future bureaucratic hassle for yourself or your caregivers by not doing it while you are still competent. Get yourself enrolled. The clawback will appear on your T4 OAS as tax deducted at source.
For the same reason I would not defer CPP any later than 70. There is no advantage in doing so. 

You are complaining that you will have too much income after age 70; that you will not receive any net OAS (which is funded from General Revenues - ie. other people's tax money) after clawback; and that you will have to pay taxes at your high marginal rate on CPP. My heart bleeds for you, but as the doctors say, it is a well-controlled hemorrhage.

PS. I'm glad you enjoy your work, but maybe you should read this post https://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/138006-Enjoy-Yourself and think about it.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

kcowan said:


> I think that is an extreme example. I know several painters and they have low expectations to survive on that income. Now let's talk about lawyers who love their work. Unless they are trial lawyers, that is very rare. In the case of LTA, he enjoyed his job because he was good at it, but he had no illusions about loving it.


Why thank you kcowan, I couldn't have put it better myself. I always wonder about people who say they 'love' their work. Truth be told, I simply don't believe them but do recognize that some people are very good at fooling themselves. It isn't the 'work' they love, it is something else entirely, they simply don't recognize or want to admit what that something else is. 

As for painters who love painting, well, if they paint without an expectation of earning money, I can suppose they just love painting. How many people who say they love their work though do their job without an expectation of earning money? The difference to me between doing something because you just love to do it and a JOB of WORK, is whether you expect to earn money from doing it or not. My wife is an avid gardener with no expectations of earning money from being in our garden. Try finding a gardener to do it for you without being paid. My wife certainly wouldn't be happy to take care of your garden for you without being paid, no matter how much she 'loves gardening.'

The idea that someone does something just because they love doing it, falls at the gate when you ask them to do it without earning money. We could ask the OP if he would be happy to continue doing the 'job he loves' without being paid. Let's see how that answer turns out.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

naysmitj said:


> At the age of 69 I continue to really enjoy my life at work and, barring any severe health issues, I have no plans to leave the workplace for another 3 to 5 years.


Do you love your job or is that you don't mind working for whatever reason? For example, if they stopped paying you would you still go to work?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Loving one's work is a common expression that has been over used and misinterpreted over time, but an expression none the less that is well understood. Take it for what it is and not be so freaking anal (literal) about it.

Back to regular programming, OE's post #14 and OGG's post #17 pretty much sum it up. Programs are set up and financed to respond to the mainstream, and must have rules to avoid excessive abuse of the high(er) MTR taxpayer who foots the bill for all this stuff.


----------



## diharv (Apr 19, 2011)

There are people who actually complain about having to start cashing in their RSPs at 71? The lamenting about OAS clawback and moving heaven and earth to avoid it is also getting really old . I think one should strive to have a retirement income high enough to have it 100% clawed back and celebrate if you get that .


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

The problem is that a clawback always feels like a tax. The worst are people on GIS or worse then that, welfare. The GIS people complain because they have very low incomes but can get a loss of almost 70% when their 20% tax rate is combined with their 50% GIS clawback, when they come into other incomes. This clawback has nothing to do with a tax rate. It has to do with the fact that people of higher incomes should get less or none at all. That sounds fair and we all have come to live with that but once they are given a certain amount, any amount less feels like a tax. It is not, it is just an amount less.

Welfare is even worse, because we are talking about people who pay NO TAX AT ALL. The money they complain about losing is GIVEN TO THEM. They do not work for it. But the complainers will say, if these people earn a dollar, they lose a dollar of welfare and therefore it is not fair or right. Again, welfare clawback has nothing to do with tax rates. The clawback is due to income levels that are essential in ensuring the system is not abused and therefore sustainable.

This situation is no different. We have been told all our lives that high income individuals do not get OAS. Certainly when we were at lower income levels, we had no problem with that. Seems OK to me, since no one actually paid into the plan and therefore it is just another income tested benefit. Now in this case, the OP now complains that its clawback is age discrimination in that it is forcing him to retire earlier then he wants. It obviously is not doing that but I can see why he sees it that way. His real issue is that he earns an enormous income and thinks that he still deserves OAS because another Canadian who earns a lot less then him, gets it. He would not be alone with that opinion, so I am glad the system doesn't listen to them and works like it does.

Perhaps he can take solace in the fact that he is being hit, due to his high income, not only the same way others are hit with similar incomes, but the way everyone is hit, regardless of their incomes. 

You would not believe how much free government money I missed out on because I did not have any kids. I missed out on more because I did not have a disability. We all could go on about these things until the cows come home, but it does not change anything nor should it.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Eclectic12 said:


> Is a painter who is painting in the 90's someone who must have no interests beyond their "work" of painting?


It depends...are they creating art or are they a house painter? One of them is a hobby and the other is "work".

For example, I'm retired from a real job but get paid to play music (my hobby). I'd still play music if there was no money involved, but I wouldn't go back to work unless they paid me.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

I really enjoyed my work life but since retiring early, you couldn't pay me enough to go back to it. Retirement is so stress-free when you are debt free and financially independent. Do what pleases you, you never know how long you have.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Mechanic said:


> I really enjoyed my work life but since retiring early, you couldn't pay me enough to go back to it. Retirement is so stress-free when you are debt free and financially independent. Do what pleases you, you never know how long you have.


I think part of the problem is our use of the word 'retirement' and what that implies to most people. I believe that most people equate that word 'retirement' as an end game. You retire and wait to die. It is seen as a negative overall, no matter how much people will say, 'oh yeah, we can't wait to go on a world cruise after we retire', or putter around in our garden, etc. etc. It's like they are just trying to put some kind of a positive spin on something that overall, they really see as a negative thing. They're gonna retire and then wait to die.

As I've said elsewhere today, perhaps if we stopped talking about 'retirement' and started talking about 'financial independence', which is a term you have used here, it would help people see it differently. Using the term 'financially independent' does not have that same negative connotation that 'retirement seems to have for so many people.

When I set out on my own path to early retirement, I wasn't setting out to retire and wait to die obviously. I was setting out to gain financial independence and the freedom to choose what to do every single day of my life from then on. There was no nonsense about will I be happier if I am doing a job I like doing or not. Or as happy working as not working. The answer should be obvious to anyone. Being FREE to do as you choose is always going to be preferable to HAVING to do something.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

kcowan said:


> I think that is an extreme example. I know several painters and they have low expectations to survive on that income. Now let's talk about lawyers who love their work. Unless they are trial lawyers, that is very rare. In the case of LTA, he enjoyed his job because he was good at it, but he had no illusions about loving it.


We can talk about anyone we want ... how about Gates versus Musk? 
Gates has interests as he has moved on to his charity (i.e. interest) while Musk doesn't because he is still working?

I already understood LTA enjoyed but did not love it. 

What I am questioning is the idea that someone who loves their work and wants to keep doing it must have no other interests.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> Why thank you kcowan, I couldn't have put it better myself. I always wonder about people who say they 'love' their work. Truth be told, I simply don't believe them but do recognize that some people are very good at fooling themselves. It isn't the 'work' they love, it is something else entirely, they simply don't recognize or want to admit what that something else is ...


A lot fool themselves and some do their job for a lot less than they can make doing another job they are good at.


Cheers


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Eclectic12 said:


> What I am questioning is the idea that someone who loves their work and wants to keep doing it must have no other interests.


We don't know what the OP's job is, other than they say that like it so much that they either don't want to stop working or they have no outside interests that they'd rather do.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> Take away the money and I bet the love of the job diminishes considerably. For most people the love of their job is a combination of many things, but the *money is almost always one of them.*


 ... for the most part, no doubt.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> We don't know what the OP's job is, other than they say that like it so much that they either don't want to stop working or they have no outside interests that they'd rather do.


+1 It really doesn't matter which or both it is. It is not important to the question raised.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> +1 It really doesn't matter which or both it is. It is not important to the question raised.


Are you saying that each person is free to do whatever works best for them without getting majority agreement from the posters on this board. That sounds a little radical. lol.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

That is radical.....


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Eclectic12 said:


> We can talk about anyone we want ... how about Gates versus Musk?
> Gates has interests as he has moved on to his charity (i.e. interest) while Musk doesn't because he is still working?
> 
> I already understood LTA enjoyed but did not love it.
> ...


I for one am certainly not saying that Eclectic12. Someone can say they 'love' their work and have other interests as well obviously. It is not an 'either/or' issue. What I am addressing is this 'love' of work that people refer to and whether that is really true or not. Work is work. If a ditch digger tells you he loves his work, does it make the actual work any less work? Even if he does 'love' his work, would being in a position to CHOOSE whether to do it or not, not be a better position to be in?

Take another look at what the OP is writing about. He says he 'loves' his work but his entire OP is about MONEY. Now tell me what it is he working for? Love or money?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> I for one am certainly not saying that Eclectic12.


Between being "amazed" that someone could write they loved their work and what looks like speculation that "no interests in life outside of work" would change your mind - it read like no other interests that work ones was the one possibly case that might make sense to you. All the other comments about being able to choose what to do instead of having work dictate part of one's schedule seems to reinforce this idea. 




Longtimeago said:


> ... If a ditch digger tells you he loves his work, does it make the actual work any less work?
> Even if he does 'love' his work, would being in a position to CHOOSE whether to do it or not, not be a better position to be in?


A few I know of commented they would do the same job for less money as they enjoyed it. The job seemed to fit what they particularly were interested in. They turned down other jobs that paid more for less work so it seems they didn't see it as work, in the way you are/did. 




Longtimeago said:


> ... Take another look at what the OP is writing about. He says he 'loves' his work but his entire OP is about MONEY. Now tell me what it is he working for? Love or money?


The OP is complaining about the tax bite that having to switch to a withdrawal mode at an age that he/she would prefer to keep working makes me thing it is more love than money. After all, the lost taxes could easily be solved by stopping working.

They may be fooling themselves and maybe not ... only when they are honest with themselves, will they know for sure.


Cheers


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

AltaRed said:


> +1 It really doesn't matter which or both it is. It is not important to the question raised.


Maybe not, but working and choosing when to retire isn't just about the money. It's also about quality of life. The percentage of people who wished they didn't retire after trying it for a while (assuming they are financially secure) is small. Of course the OP can continue to work if they want, but this is a financial forum and the majority of people here would like to retire early. Some of us are just pointing out a different perspective that might be worth considering.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> ... The percentage of people who wished they didn't retire after trying it for a while (assuming they are financially secure) is small ...


Canadians regretting retirement were surveyed to be 27%, with 59% saying it was for intellectual stimulation.
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/01/30/canada-retirement-attitudes-survey/


For the US, those who retire then return to part/full time work is reported to be 1/3. 
https://www.newretirement.com/retir...find-out-why-retirees-are-going-back-to-work/


For Canada, it is reported that within a decade of retiring, more than half return to work.
https://business.financialpost.com/...urn-to-work-within-a-decade-statistics-canada



Personally, I can find lots of stimulation without working but the numbers IMO do not seem all that small. :biggrin:


Cheers


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

There is a big difference between working full time with overtime accompanied by more job stress then should be required compared to working part time on lower stress jobs.

In the latter, when a person comes across a money making idea they weigh it against the time cost of fulfilling their side of the job equation and since they believe they have more time on their hands then they even want, doing this job is an easy decision. Especially if they feel the money would also be useful, which most people will feel that way if only because greed is a universal human emotion.

So the statistics of those going back to work are meaningless unless they separate out those who went back to full time work. All the rest is just another retirement activity, if you ask me, that they probably enjoy doing.

If a friend asks me to help him build a deck, I don't consider my acceptance as "going back to work", whether the friend pays me or not.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> There is a big difference between working full time with overtime accompanied by more job stress then should be required compared to working part time on lower stress jobs ...


Agreed ... but the people I am using the stats to get a general idea about have already retired, are financially stable and regret retiring. They already have the ability skip *any* employment but have chosen to go back to work. 

I suspect intellectual stimulation trumps full/part time and any associated stress. Where the retired person is returning to essentially the same job, one would think they would already have a good handle on the stress involved. If the situation has changed too much for their liking, they don't need the job and can quit to resume retirement at any time.




OptsyEagle said:


> ... All the rest is just another retirement activity, if you ask me, that they probably enjoy doing.
> If a friend asks me to help him build a deck, I don't consider my acceptance as "going back to work", whether the friend pays me or not.


Would you go to work for a deck building company or start your own deck building company?
This seems a better analogy than helping a friend with or without pay.


Regardless, the question at hand is whether those choose to go back to work who don't need to are a small number or not.


Cheers


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Prairie Guy said:


> If all of your OAS will be clawed back, that comes at a threshold of over $125,000 per year. Plus you continue to contribute to RRSP's and are not collecting CPP. You're better off than most people.


I would say so. How many Canadians have full OAS clawed back? If I had to guess it might be close to <1% of retirees.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

According to what looks like a 2017 article, two percent completely lose OAS.
https://retirehappy.ca/minimizing-old-age-security-clawback/


Cheers


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

and, in fact, only 5% of seniors get any cuts! If one spouse earns $75k and the other earns $125k, one spouse is totally clawed back and the other not at all. If each spouse earns $98k, they each lose half, i.e. the same net effect. But from a statistical viewpoint, the first case has only one senior clawed back while the second has two.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Eclectic12 said:


> Agreed ... but the people I am using the stats to get a general idea about have already retired, are financially stable and regret retiring. They already have the ability skip *any* employment but have chosen to go back to work.
> 
> I suspect intellectual stimulation trumps full/part time and any associated stress. Where the retired person is returning to essentially the same job, one would think they would already have a good handle on the stress involved. If the situation has changed too much for their liking, they don't need the job and can quit to resume retirement at any time.
> 
> ...


I think you may be simplifying too much and putting too much or the wrong interpretation and reliance on the statistics Eclectic12.

For example, regardless of why people SAY they went back to work, where in there are the people who simply have no real interests outside of work? When some people say they are 'bored' in retirement, what are they really saying?

My view of people who go back to work after having retired, is that they fall into categories as is always the case with most things. Category one, those who find they in fact do not have enough income to live on. In other words, they have to work to pay their bills.

Category two, those who have developed no other real interests in life. It isn't that retirement is boring, it is that the person is boring in that regard and in my view.

Category three, those who cannot see their own self-worth in terms of other than 'who they are' being defined by 'what they do' and 'what title they have.' Some people find it very hard to move from being perceived as a 'somebody important' to 'just another retiree going to a chain restaurant in Florida for the 'early bird special'.

Retirement is like anything else, to do so successfully requires you to have a plan and perhaps most importantly, the right attitude going into it. It isn't hard to see that those who go into it with a negative attitude to begin with, are likely to discover what a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' is. The 'statistics' alone do not cover any of that Eclectic12. I don't think the question at hand should be 'whether those choose to go back to work who don't need to are a small number or not.' I think the question should be what did they get wrong before and when going into retirement, that caused them to go back to work?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> I think you may be simplifying too much and putting too much or the wrong interpretation and reliance on the statistics Eclectic12 ...


Then either I wasn't clear or the details were not read properly ... the stats so far are the best proxy I have found to move from anecdotes that may have false consensus bias to something better. 




Longtimeago said:


> ... My view of people who go back to work after having retired, is that they fall into categories The 'statistics' alone do not cover any of that Eclectic12.


Absolutely ... if you have found better sources that help dive into the categories as well as confirm the reasons, feel free to share. 




Longtimeago said:


> ... I don't think the question at hand should be 'whether those choose to go back to work who don't need to are a small number or not.' I think the question should be what did they get wrong before and when going into retirement, that caused them to go back to work?


Neither question seems to have much beyond anecdotes or articles aimed at the financial aspects.


Cheers


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

The best place to look at retirees and would-be's is early-retirement.org. Very few return to work. Even the incidence of OMY is rare (one more year). The only common thread is that there will be lots left over for heirs. So even though the methodology is to die broke, few are even close to the edge.


----------



## naysmitj (Sep 16, 2014)

Longtimeago said:


> I think you may be simplifying too much and putting too much or the wrong interpretation and reliance on the statistics Eclectic12.
> 
> For example, regardless of why people SAY they went back to work, where in there are the people who simply have no real interests outside of work? When some people say they are 'bored' in retirement, what are they really saying?
> 
> ...


Interesting to catch up on this thread after starting it.
My initial thought on beginning this thread was that regardless of the fact that retirement is optional in Canada, there are several programs, CPP, OAS, and RRSPs which currently mature at the age of 70.
In the case of CPP and OAS, we can delay until the age of 70 and benefit by the delay through the increased benefits which are available.
In the case of RRSPs you can delay moving to RIF until your 70th year.
While we continue to live healthier and longer than our grandparents and even our parents, we are still being driven into programs which determine that we should stop working at 70.
I believe that this is a form of age discrimination against the growing number of seniors that, for whatever reason, choose to continue to work.
By allowing the delay of collecting CPP, OAS and receiving a tiered increased benefit once retired, the government programs will pay less out over time.
The seniors who continue to work and realize an increase in their CPP and OAS monthly payments will receive the benefit of more money on a monthly basis, all be it for less time than those retiring early.
Delaying the RRSP to RIF conversion slows the premature draining of their RRSPs. The feds will end up with it all one day anyway, so it is a benefit to the working seniors who choose to work while not costing government more. 
I realize that I am in the minority, and that this will not be looked at seriously until my children are of retirement age, but I just thought I would put it out there.
Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

A couple of flaws in your thinking.....

1. A minor nit - conversion of an RRSP to a RRIF does not have to occur until the year in which one turns 71. The first year of required minimum withdrawal is the year one turns 72.

2. None of the programs 'force' anyone to retire at age 70. Feel free to continue working. The only cost to continuing working is: a) higher MTR on combined annual income due to benefit income stream being added to one's employment income, and b) potentially more clawback on OAS. 

3. You are free to accept less earnings from your employment to offset the income from benefit programs. If you don't like a reduction in your earnings/hr, negotiate a corresponding reduction in working hours.

That all said, one could argue the gross up methodology for deferring CPP and OAS to age 70 could continue to apply until age 75. I am not sure the same can be said for the RRIF schedule where the taxpayer has a right to demand repayment of the appropriate funds to compensate for all those years of tax deferment. I have paid a lot of income tax over my working years and I don't want anyone, like yourself, to receive disproportionate tax deferment without the appropriate compensation, e.g. perhaps in the form of accelerated withdrawal minimums. Remember it is not the government I care about... it is me, the taxpayer, that I care about.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

naysmitj said:


> I believe that this is a form of age discrimination against the growing number of seniors that, for whatever reason, choose to continue to work.


CPP and OAS are a safety net for the majority of Canadians and provide them a cushion in their later years. They were not designed to provide tax advantages to well off people. 

I'm curious...very few people are lucky enough to have a career that they enjoy so much that they want to work beyond 70, never mind 60. What kind of work do?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

If it's unfair that CPP/OAS have to begin no later than age 70 even if you still choose to work (and 72 for an RRSP as AR points out), ISTM that others will consider it unfair that by starting them at that age they are unlikely to get their 'full' benefit out of them, and leave a large RRIF tax liability to their estate when they die. 
The life expectancy for a male at age 70 is still only age 83-84.
Like they say, we can only be certain of two things - death and taxes.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> The life expectancy for a male at age 70 is still only age 83-84.


And to be more certain, those quoted life expectancies are 50/50 probabilities. In other words, 50% chance of living to 83/84.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

and those actuarial tables have a dominant statistic from people who actually worked until 65. When the hordes that retired at 55 and 60 show up by actually dying, I suspect the median will extend. At least, that is what I am counting on! 

If what I suspect becomes true, there is a higher chance of people running out of money by living beyond their actuarial assumption.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

May be the other way around. So many people retired early during the downsizing years, and when more people actually had 85* pensions, that I think retirement age is now actually creeping up, including those who had to work longer due to the 2008/2009 crisis.

* A lot of civil service DB pensions and even blue chip corporate DB pensions had the 85 factor, i.e. combination of age and years of service, to qualify for a non-discounted pension. Many people I know left at circa age 55 when they reached the 85 factor. Those are becoming way more scarce and/or more people have had more than one employer skewering the years of service aggregation.


----------



## naysmitj (Sep 16, 2014)

Overdose crises lowering life expectancy: Statistics Canada

Life expectancy in Canada has stopped increasing for the first time in more than four decades, due largely to soaring overdose deaths in the Western provinces.

In British Columbia, the province hit hardest by these deaths, life expectancy fell for a second year in a row, decreasing by 0.3 years for men and 0.1 years for women from 2016 to 2017, according to Statistics Canada.

In Alberta, the life expectancy for men fell by 0.24 years, and for women 0.1 years, over the same period.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

But that doesn't affect 60+ age group stats, or 70+ age group stats, or perhaps even 50+ age group stats. it only affects the 'all in' stats since most of those that are dying are <50 yr old.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> * A lot of civil service DB pensions and even blue chip corporate DB pensions had the 85 factor, i.e. combination of age and years of service, to qualify for a non-discounted pension. Many people I know left at circa age 55 when they reached the 85 factor. Those are becoming way more scarce and/or more people have had more than one employer skewering the years of service aggregation.


I took advantage of the once only 75 window to retire and collect my pension at age 50! I am pretty sure that the actuarial tables worked to my advantage. I have been collecting for 27 years and still going strong.

OTOH two of my workmates kept working until 65 and both expired at age 67. The live to work group.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

My father retired in 1980. He was ill. He found out that the average lifespan for pension payout at his long time employer was on or about 68. He decided to retire early, move to the west coast. Golf three times a week and no stress resulted in his health rebounding and flourishing within 12 months. That DB paid out to age 88, then another two years to my mother. 

I did exactly the same. Full DB was payable at 62. Got a great buyout at 58, the buyout months credited to my pensionable service. Age and service did the rest. In the industry in which I worked I can only remember long term employees retiring from the break fix area. In all other areas not only did I never see people retire, most ees were transitioned/bought out/fired/ whatever in their early or mid fifties at the latest. When I left there were very few active employees left n the DB plan. Most had been moved, or chose to move, to the DC plan. Those that chose, and remained with the company, came to regret that decision.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

ian said:


> My father retired in 1980. He was ill. He found out that the average lifespan for pension payout at his long time employer was on or about 68. He decided to retire early, move to the west coast. Golf three times a week and *no stress resulted in his health rebounding and flourishing within 12 months*.


Wow, so glad to hear this!

Reducing stress is important. This is a big reason I took my current job, and it's also why I'm taking time off between this job and my next one to take it easy for a while.

Every person is different. Some people seem to love working (hard) all the time. I do not. I very much enjoy taking some time for leisure, and stopping to smell the flowers. I went on a great hike yesterday in the mountains and looked at the wildflowers coming up as I hiked up 1500 ft.

If my time off and relaxation means lower income and lower net worth, so be it. That's a tradeoff I'm happy to make.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> If my time off and relaxation means lower income and lower net worth, *so be it.* That's a tradeoff I'm *happy *to make.


 ... :encouragement: :victorious: :cheerful: 

[Contrary to the topic of this thread: ... life is short.]


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Reducing stress is important. This is a big reason I took my current job, and it's also why I'm taking time off between this job and my next one to take it easy for a while.


My opinion is that every time a young person takes it _easy for a while_, it's time that must be added to their working life in order to accumulate enough to retire. No doubt it's quite appealing while you're young to not work or sow your oats or have a good time. Who doesn't want that?

When you're young, the mind and body is quite resilient and able to handle stress. Youth is the time that you should be fighting the good fight and doing all you can to put enough away or create the conditions such that you're able to retire at a decent age. The power of a young body and mind can handle enormous stress and still take advantage of whatever life has to offer in this busy world. I've been there, I've done that and was somewhat caught off guard at what being old has to offer.

You'd be surprised how fast you go down-hill as you age with respect to physical abilities, mental abilities, and confidence. Thank goodness I worked every day of my life and didn't take any breaks during my working career, so I could retire at a decent age and not have to worry that if I feel tired today, I can just sit down knowing I don't have to go to work.

Just another point of view.

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> You'd be surprised how fast you go down-hill as you age with respect to physical abilities, mental abilities, and confidence. Thank goodness I worked every day of my life and didn't take any breaks during my working career, so I could retire at a decent age and not have to worry that if I feel tired today, I can just sit down knowing I don't have to go to work.


That's a valid point of view, but personally I'm not willing to postpone all enjoyment of life until later.

Even in my late 30s, I know some people who work way too hard. Some of them aren't in very good shape at all; the work is ageing them rapidly and I'm not so sure they will be capable of enjoying their time off when they eventually retire.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Much of it depends on how portable one's career is and expectations from prospective employers once a sabbatical is over. It would have never worked in my career and not the responsible thing to do supporting a stay-at-home Mom and 2 children. but a year or two off for a single guy isn't a crisis. I could argue taking time off during one's prime years shouldn't be a big deal if one has no other responsibilities, but it also depends on what does with that time off.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I expect taking some time off _will_ hurt my income earning prospects. That's something I'm aware of, and am willing to accept. Nothing comes for free. In my evaluation, the joy and health benefits exceed the anticipated loss of income and net worth.

The same thing happens to mothers of course. They take 1-5 years off to have a child, and then try re-entering the work force. Then we hear complaints about how salaries are unfair and women don't achieve as high levels of seniority, and how there aren't many women at the top. Well, it happens for an obvious reason... on average, women don't work continuously (because a nonzero number of women have children).

I'm aware it happens to women, and that it will likely happen to me as well. You will not hear me complaining about earning less than my peers who have been working continuously and without a break.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> I expect taking some time off _will_ hurt my income earning prospects. That's something I'm aware of, and am willing to accept. Nothing comes for free.


Yeah, I get it James, and I'm not being flippant here. These "breaks" I see many young people talking about concern me. The problem with being young is you have little idea what it's like to be old. You don't know what tired is really like. I remember being tired of working when I was your age. It's a lot different when you reach an age around 70. Trust me. I'm just trying to add something to your thought process that you're completely incapable of understanding. Not because you're not a smart guy, because you are, it's because you're not 70 years old. I can tell this by the comment, _"not willing to postpone all enjoyment of life until later"_. Funny stuff.

Just be sure you really, really enjoy that time off while you're young, because if it gets added to your time when you're old, it's a bugger.

ltr


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

I seem to recall there was a way to take time off from work then just go back like nothing (well almost) happened ... oh yeah, holidays! 

edit: Comment not directed at you James, just having some fun!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

LTR, these are good points and I am reading your views with interest. It's very true that I have no idea what it's like to be old.

But I _have_ listened to many seniors (especially in my own family) who have given me advice over the years. I carefully listened to their advice. And the advice has overwhelmingly been to make the most of my "best years". They've encouraged me to take time to have fun, and to make sure I don't miss opportunities that only exist in these years.

So yes, I know I don't have the perspective that seniors have, but I promise you that I've listened to many people over 60 and this is a huge part of what's formed my path. Different people have different values, and I suspect you would not agree with the seniors that I know.



cainvest said:


> I seem to recall there was a way to take time off from work then just go back like nothing (well almost) happened ... oh yeah, holidays!


That would be nice, but there are few holidays where I currently work. There is just one day off in December (Christmas) but the office is open again from Dec 26 until new years eve, which is also a work day. The next day off is New Years Day. After that, there is not another day off at all until end of May. Easter etc are also work days.

Those of you who have decent holidays are lucky; I hope you appreciate it. Here is my full list of company holidays:

Jan 1 - New Years Day
May 26(ish) - Memorial Day
July 4 - Independence Day
Sept 1 - Labour Day
Nov 27 & 28 - Thanksgiving, the longest string of days off
Dec 25 - Christmas

Want any days off between Christmas and New Years? Want to take any time off in that 5 month stretch between Jan 1 - May 27? Then I'm using my time off balance, which is also my sick day balance. Catch the flu for a week and kiss your vacation goodbye.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> ... That would be nice, but there are few holidays where I currently work. There is just *one day off in December (Christmas) * ...


Not sure why one day off in December is a big deal when nine of ten provinces and possibly all three territories are the same.




james4beach said:


> ... new years eve, which is also a work day.


Same here - New Years Eve has always been a working day for me for decades. None of the provinces give a statutory holiday.




james4beach said:


> ... Those of you who have decent holidays are lucky; I hope you appreciate it.


Agreed.




james4beach said:


> ... Here is my full list of company holidays:
> 
> Jan 1 - New Years Day
> May 26(ish) - Memorial Day
> ...


Someone on the low end at six stat holidays would like the extra day as I count seven days on your list. 
I am not sure how someone with eight would react - they probably wouldn't like losing a day.
Someone at the high end of ten wouldn't like it all that much.




james4beach said:


> ... Then I'm using my time off balance, which is also my sick day balance. Catch the flu for a week and kiss your vacation goodbye.


This seems more of an issue to me - having sick days and vacation days coming out of the same pot. How many are granted each year?


Cheers


*PS*
Canada's range of six to ten stat holidays seems stingy compared to Cambodia's twenty seven or Sri Lanka's twenty.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

US companies are highly stingy on sick days, statutory holidays and vacation time. When I was an expat circa 2003-2006, I worked alongside Americans who envied my 6 weeks off (once I reached 25 years of service). They only got 3 weeks with similar service with a major blue chip company and I have no idea what their sick leave policy was.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

My understanding is that nothing paid (stat or vacation) is required by the US. The seven James is referring to seems to be strictly what his company decided to offer.

Paid vacation/holidays made for an interesting topic at a training course in Rome. 

The American employee was shocked that us Canadians had more and the Swedish employee couldn't figure out how either could relax with so few. She had twenty five paid vacation days plus custom had the nine stat holidays paid (though there was no legal requirement to pay the stat ones). The Italians weren't far behind with twenty paid vacation days and twelve paid stat holidays.


Cheers


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> That would be nice, but there are few holidays where I currently work.


Ah, your leave makes much more sense to me now ... geez, you need to find a better company with more time off!



james4beach said:


> Those of you who have decent holidays are lucky; I hope you appreciate it.


I do appreciate my vacation time, I get 7 weeks now including stats.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> ...
> 
> Want any days off between Christmas and New Years?


 ... why can't the company allow alternating turns for staff to take time off during this "slow" business period of YE? And keep staff happy ... moreover, it's supposedly be part of the joyous Christmas season. Looks like your company likes to practice being Scrooge. Or are they expecting a tsunami of business(es) coming in between Dec.26 and 31st? 



> Want to take any time off in that 5 month stretch between Jan 1 - May 27? Then I'm using my time off balance, which is also my sick day balance. *Catch the flu for a week and kiss your vacation goodbye.*


 ... boy, I hell ain't wanna work in a place where employees are encouraged (or more like forced) to share their flu-bugs. Poor company policy.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

That's exactly what happens; everyone comes to work sick, because the penalty for staying home and resting is losing a day of real vacation. And I still vividly remember the year when they cancelled Christmas (they used to shut down everything between x-mas and NY but decided to stop doing that a couple years ago).

Anyway sorry for derailing the thread.


----------

