# When to start CPP



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

My wife and I are within a few years of retiring so I have been starting to think about when to start collecting CPP. I downloaded the CPP calculator (Thank you to the folks who created this and keep it up to date!) I will be 60 (or close) when I retire and according to Sunlife, my life expectancy is 84. I also assumed a combined tax bracket of 30.5% until the age of 71 when I increased it to 36% due to mandatory RRIF withdrawals. Based on initial calculations, I will start at 60 and my wife at 70. Any other factors I should consider?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

The earlier you start the smaller checks you get but more of them. You can start at 60 or 65, the break even point is 74. In other words if you die before your 74th birthday it is more profitable to take the money early, otherwise wait for the larger checks.
My policy is to take it when you can get it so I started collecting at sixty. Am now 69, if my doctor is right it looks like I will end up ahead of the game.


----------



## Bananatron (Jan 18, 2021)

My opinion, if you have the funds to bridge yourself the benefits from 60-65 it makes sense to take it later and enjoy the peace of mind of larger indexed guaranteed payments.

If you die before 74, you're either leaving government benefits on the table, or your retirement savings on the table. Not a good situation either way.

To use some numbers here. Let's assume your cpp benefit is $1000 at 65. This would be $640 at 60. If you can afford to pay yourself from your savings $640/mo or $7700 a year for 5 years, you'll be ahead of the game by 74 and beyond.

That's a little less than $40,000.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

How to calculate your CPP retirement pension - Retire Happy


To calculate your CPP retirement pension, the first thing you should do is go online and obtain your most recent CPP Statement of Contributions (SOC).




retirehappy.ca




if you or your wife stopped working to raise kids, you should apply for the child-raising benefit


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

The big thing to recall is that CPP is inflation adjusted and your future buying power of todays saved for retirement funds are not.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Also you cannot really compare lost retirement savings to lost CPP payments, since your retirement savings can be spent or given to a surviving spouse or children upon death. Lost CPP payments are lost CPP payments. I rarely consider a future dollar promised by someone else the same as a future dollar I currently control in my investment accounts.

My other complaint about postponing CPP is that if you are retired at 60, if you start CPP immediately the calculation is based upon contributory years up to that age. If you delay, till age 65 for example, your calculation adds 5 more zero contribution years that reduces your benefit amount. Seems a little unfair to me. Perhaps the increase takes care of some of that but I still think the CPP program could do more to deal with that particular issue.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

OptsyEagle said:


> Also you cannot really compare lost retirement savings to lost CPP payments, since your retirement savings can be spent or given to a surviving spouse or children upon death. Lost CPP payments are lost CPP payments. I rarely consider a future dollar promised by someone else the same as a future dollar I currently control in my investment accounts.
> 
> My other complaint about postponing CPP is that if you are retired at 60, if you start CPP immediately the calculation is based upon contributory years up to that age. If you delay, till age 65 for example, your calculation adds 5 more zero contribution years that reduces your benefit amount. Seems a little unfair to me. Perhaps the increase takes care of some of that but I still think the CPP program could do more to deal with that particular issue.


The zero contribution years might not have any effect if the CPP retiree has already achieved 39M's at age 60, since they are well maxed....Meaning if they collected at age 65, even with 5 years of no additional contributions, they would have the maximum CPP possible.


----------



## Bananatron (Jan 18, 2021)

OptsyEagle said:


> Also you cannot really compare lost retirement savings to lost CPP payments, since your retirement savings can be spent or given to a surviving spouse or children upon death. Lost CPP payments are lost CPP payments. I rarely consider a future dollar promised by someone else the same as a future dollar I currently control in my investment accounts.
> 
> My other complaint about postponing CPP is that if you are retired at 60, if you start CPP immediately the calculation is based upon contributory years up to that age. If you delay, till age 65 for example, your calculation adds 5 more zero contribution years that reduces your benefit amount. Seems a little unfair to me. Perhaps the increase takes care of some of that but I still think the CPP program could do more to deal with that particular issue.


Good point. I was thinking of the survivor benefits to my wife - 60% I believe, as it would be very unfortunate and hopefully unlikely for both of us to die before 74. If leaving something to our estate is that important I suppose one could bank the 56% monthly premium for taking the benefits at 65. As stated earlier, one would have paid him or herself back that $40,000 by age 74.

We are both prepared to take slightly discounted CPP pensions as neither of us would have the full 39 years of working by retirement age. Although my wife arguably has it easier as I think she gets 8 or so free years because of her time as a stay at home mom.

I think about this more and more lately as both my parents took early benefits as it was kind of framed as a "no brainer". They had the funds to bridge themselves and now that my father is turning 72 this year I wish they had the certainty of higher government benefits. They're worried about running out of money although I don't think its much of a concern. Still would have been nice for them to have that extra $6000 annual income rather than +$40,000 in savings.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I took mine at 60...I really enjoy the cash each month and usually blow it on something the wife & I wouldn't normally spend on. Cash is more important the younger you are imo.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You can always take the CPP early and invest the proceeds. That will extend your "break even" point. There is no rule that you have to spend it.

Although we agree with Eder and enjoyed the money at a younger age, before crotchedy old age started setting in.

The kid will get what he gets.....some life insurance, investments, and a house full of stuff he doesn't want.


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

I have a few years to go before I make my decision but have given it some thought.
WRT life expectancy estimates, it's obviously such a crapshoot. I've looked at the longevity of my parents of course but also my aunts, uncles, and grandparents and there's been a number that have hit high 90's and a couple that hit centurian status. So for me, I'm not discounting the possibility of living beyond break even point for starting to collect at 70. My rough calculations seem to indicate that even with a number of zero income years and not hitting all the max contri years, I should still come out ahead delaying to 70.

I have a DC pension and no DB pension. Personally, I like a fairly predictable income stream, which is why part of my portfolio is dividend focused. For me, I feel a larger predictable, indexed CPP payment stream at 70 would allow me to be a little more confident spending my nest egg in the younger go years and potentially opens up some options/flexibility for my asset mix.
(I could also partially annuitize, which I'm still open to but every currently hates annuities during the low interest rate environment  )


----------



## Bananatron (Jan 18, 2021)

afulldeck said:


> The zero contribution years might not have
> 
> 
> sags said:
> ...


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I think people are putting way too much trust in the promise by our government to pay you "X" amount of dollars at some start date in the future. So far, their track record has not been too bad. But a good example of my concern is that when I started out planning for my retirement, I believe the government promised me 70% of my maximum benefit at age 60. Now my government says that that benefit will only be 64%. So how good was that original promise really, and if that one was not worth its weight in salt, what are the others really worth?

The money you have in your investment accounts has to be a lot more certain then anything, any democratic, highly indebted government can ever provide. Just my opinion of course.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

My after tax breakeven between taking CPP at 60 & 70 is at about 80 years old. At 84 (my life expectancy) it works out to about 26k difference after tax. I am not sure if all of my OAS will be clawed back, but with a larger CPP amount at 70 plus mandatory RRIF I might have to account for that. I'll run a couple scenarios through Simple Tax calculator and see how it looks.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

My understanding is that CPP is a stand alone pension plan, in the top 10 of world pension schemes, extremely well funded, and has a record of well above investment returns. It is entirely funded by the contributions of employees and employers.

There is absolutely no reason to be concerned about CPP. Thanks in part to former PM Paul Martin.

CPP does NOT get clawed back. It is an entitlement, not a Gov't benefit.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

ian said:


> My understanding is that CPP is a stand alone pension plan, in the top 10 of world pension schemes, extremely well funded, and has a record of well above investment returns. It is entirely funded by the contributions of employees and employers.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason to be concerned about CPP. Thanks in part to former PM Paul Martin.
> 
> CPP does NOT get clawed back. It is an entitlement, not a Gov't benefit.


Sorry, typo. I meant OAS.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Bananatron said:


> Good point. I was thinking of the survivor benefits to my wife - 60% I believe, as it would be very unfortunate and hopefully unlikely for both of us to die before 74. If leaving something to our estate is that important I suppose one could bank the 56% monthly premium for taking the benefits at 65. As stated earlier, one would have paid him or herself back that $40,000 by age 74.
> 
> We are both prepared to take slightly discounted CPP pensions as neither of us would have the full 39 years of working by retirement age. Although my wife arguably has it easier as I think she gets 8 or so free years because of her time as a stay at home mom.
> 
> I think about this more and more lately as both my parents took early benefits as it was kind of framed as a "no brainer". They had the funds to bridge themselves and now that my father is turning 72 this year I wish they had the certainty of higher government benefits. They're worried about running out of money although I don't think its much of a concern. Still would have been nice for them to have that extra $6000 annual income rather than +$40,000 in savings.


Something to be aware of . If you both have your own CPP the survivor benefit is guaranteed to be less than 60% and it could be substantially less.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

@Dogger1953 is a CPP a expert. i believe he a service he offers, but has been kind enough to answer questions here. Perhaps he may chime in, though I haven’t seen him in a while Here.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Gator13 said:


> My wife and I are within a few years of retiring so I have been starting to think about when to start collecting CPP. I downloaded the CPP calculator (Thank you to the folks who created this and keep it up to date!) I will be 60 (or close) when I retire and according to Sunlife, my life expectancy is 84. I also assumed a combined tax bracket of 30.5% until the age of 71 when I increased it to 36% due to mandatory RRIF withdrawals. Based on initial calculations, I will start at 60 and my wife at 70. Any other factors I should consider?


FWIW - I attended a AGM of the BC Municipal Pension Plan which is the 5 or 6th largest plan in Canada with about 350000 plan members and 50B in assets. The actuary said in that meeting that at age 60 they expect men to live to 87 and women to 90 and he said in fact the ages are higher.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Retiredguy said:


> FWIW - I attended a AGM of the BC Municipal Pension Plan which is the 5 or 6th largest plan in Canada with about 350000 plan members and 50B in assets. *The actuary said in that meeting that at age 60 they expect men to live to 87 and women to 90 and he said in fact the ages are higher.*


 ... when was that expected mortality studied, hence, predicted? 5 years pre-Covid? I'm curious.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

We shouldn't need the money to live on so maybe it is better to defer until 70 and have it as a safety net.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... when was that expected mortality studied, hence, predicted? 5 years pre-Covid? I'm curious.


The meeting I reference was in October 2020. I expect it was current based on his knowledge but likely didn't include C19. The plan is formally actuarially studied every 3 yrs. I believe the next review starts in Jan 2022.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Gator13 said:


> We shouldn't need the money to live on so maybe it is better to defer until 70 and have it as a safety net.


If the survivor's pension is of significant concern be aware that the survivors pension calculation is based on age 65 regardless of the age you start it at. 
I started mine at 65, but would have deferred to 70 if it would have provided my wife a greater benefit when I die.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

Is my understanding correct that the survivor's benefit would only top my wife's pension up to the CPP maximum? If this is correct, deferring would be of no consequence.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

Gator13 said:


> Is my understanding correct that the survivor's benefit would only top my wife's pension up to the CPP maximum? If this is correct, deferring would be of no consequence.


This is from CRA:
Survivor's Pension - Canada.ca


> The most that can be paid to a person who is eligible for the retirement pension and the survivor's pension is the maximum retirement pension


Here is something from Doug Runchey on RetireHappy that explains some of the more subtle nuances of the survivor pension:
Understanding the CPP survivor's pension - Retire Happy


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Gator13 said:


> Is my understanding correct that the survivor's benefit would only top my wife's pension up to the CPP maximum? If this is correct, deferring would be of no consequence.



By you delaying yours from age 65 to 70 there will not be any greater amount to your wife should you die. For this reason I decided to start mine at 65. If delaying would have provided a greater survivor benefit I would have delayed to 70. CPP income is not determining in the least how we are able to spend our retirement years however the point is that if trying to ensure a spouse is financially ok after (typically)the husband dies, and it's part of your decision as to when to start CPP, him delaying CPP to age 70 won't help. One would be better off taking it at 65 and setting aside the 60 payments to be invested and annuitized later by the surviving spouse. 

The CPP survivor calculations are simply goofy, some people think taking cpp at 60 will provide greater room should the spouse die because of the CPP max you refer to. It won't 

Doug Runchey who has been referred to in this thread by others is indeed the go to expert. He has a thread in the Retirement section title "I'm a CPP expert" and has recently posted.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

Gator13 said:


> We shouldn't need the money to live on so maybe it is better to defer until 70 and have it as a safety net.


That's the way I look at it.

One important factor is how much other retirement income you have and how much of it is inflation indexed lifetime income. Someone that has an indexed, lifetime guaranteed DB pension (mostly public service pensions) that cover all their non-discretionary retirement expenditures will have a secure financial retirement. For those people, taking early or deferring is unlikely to have a huge effect on their retirement finances, no matter how long they live or what the economy is like.

For retirees that don't have any guaranteed indexed lifetime income other than CPP and OAS, deferring can make for a more secure less risky retirement. Deciding when to take CPP is not about guessing how long you will live to try to maximize your expected take. Deferring to 70 can more than double CPP compared to taking at 60. That could be an important benefit if the retiree experiences a bout of high inflation or low investment returns, or simply fails to die in a timely manner.

Some people say take CPP early and invest it. But CPP and its inflation adjustments are inflation indexed and government guaranteed for life, and investment returns are not. If the economy is so bad that CPP gets reduced, imagine how bad investments could be. CPP is different than OAS and GIS. CPP is funded like a DB pension, with contributions and payout ratios defined by the plan. Yet many DB pension members beam with pride over the security of their pension but are suspicious of CPP sustainability.  

Consider deferring CPP like long-life insurance, insuring against adverse economic conditions later in life when you have little capability to increase your income to compensate.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

ian said:


> My understanding is that CPP is a stand alone pension plan, in the top 10 of world pension schemes, extremely well funded, and has a record of well above investment returns. It is entirely funded by the contributions of employees and employers.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason to be concerned about CPP. Thanks in part to former PM Paul Martin.
> 
> CPP does NOT get clawed back. It is an entitlement, not a Gov't benefit.


Then where is my promised 70% of my max benefit at age 60? When they REDUCED that they did not refund me any contributions. They did not compensate me in any other way. They gave me a choice, but that is not the point. Unless one of my choices was to keep my promised 70% of my max at age 60, then you cannot put faith in anything they promise. Taking away your preferred option and replacing it with ones you don't like is not really accounting for the change. That is just political mumbo jumbo.

I am not saying it is a bad plan. I am just saying that anything you control has to be more dependable then something that is controlled by a democratic government that is heavily indebted. Be careful how much faith you put in others for your survival.


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

OptsyEagle said:


> Then where is my promised 70% of my max benefit at age 60? When they REDUCED that they did not refund me any contributions. They did not compensate me in any other way. They gave me a choice, but that is not the point. Unless one of my choices was to keep my promised 70% of my max at age 60, then you cannot put faith in anything they promise. Taking away your preferred option and replacing it with ones you don't like is not really accounting for the change. That is just political mumbo jumbo.
> 
> I am not saying it is a bad plan. I am just saying that anything you control has to be more dependable then something that is controlled by a democratic government that is heavily indebted. Be careful how much faith you put in others for your survival.


It was an actuarial adjustment made because people are living longer lives. So, people who start CPP at 60 are not losing benefits -- they will be made whole (on average) by collecting those benefits for a longer period of time.

And the "promise" was never based on collecting at age 60. It is based on collecting at age 65, with an adjustment applied to those who take it earlier or later so that the payout remained actuarially neutral. It is only the adjustment that changed, not the promise. Your age 65 pension promise remains the same.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

fireseeker said:


> It was an actuarial adjustment made because people are living longer lives. So, people who start CPP at 60 are not losing benefits -- they will be made whole (on average) by collecting those benefits for a longer period of time.
> 
> And the "promise" was never based on collecting at age 60. It is based on collecting at age 65, with an adjustment applied to those who take it earlier or later so that the payout remained actuarially neutral. It is only the adjustment that changed, not the promise. Your age 65 pension promise remains the same.


I am sure that is how they justified taking it away as well. I imagine when they take the next benefit away they will have a beautiful and well thought out explanation for that as well. I just don't understand why someone would spend their own money that they control, in the belief that someone else, that has proven not to be overly trustworthy, promises to replace it.

Just my opinion. I am not overly concerned about the 6%. I am just making a point that I doubt anyone wants to hear...but should.


----------



## Bananatron (Jan 18, 2021)

If I remember correctly, CPP isn't a traditional pension in the sense that it is funded and invested, rather it is the workers premiums that essentially pay the retirees benefits. As long as there is a workforce, there should be CPP.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

Bananatron said:


> If I remember correctly, CPP isn't a traditional pension in the sense that it is funded and invested, rather it is the workers premiums that essentially pay the retirees benefits. As long as there is a workforce, there should be CPP.


Good question!

Canada Pension Plan From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The base CPP is funded on a "steady-state" basis, with its current contribution rate set so that it will remain constant for the next 75 years, by accumulating a reserve fund sufficient to stabilize the asset/expenditure and funding ratios over time. *Such a system is a hybrid between a fully funded one and a "pay-as-you-go" plan.* In other words, assets held in the CPP fund are by themselves insufficient to pay for all future benefits accrued to date but sufficient to prevent contributions from rising any further.





> major changes to the CPP, including those that alter how benefits are calculated, require the approval of at least seven Canadian provinces representing at least two-thirds of the country's population.


It always surprises me how many public service DB pension members beam with pride over the security of their pension but are suspicious of CPP sustainability. Plus they hate RRSPs because they must pay tax on withdrawals, but they love their pensions, even though they must pay tax on pension payments. RRSPs and workplace pensions are both tax-deferred retirement savings vehicles. Sheesh!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think the Wikipedia reference to CPP is flawed.

Last I read the CPP pays all benefits out of contributions. Neither the investment fund nor capital returns are required to pay current benefits.

In the future, it is projected the payment of benefits will require all contributiions plus "some" of the capital investment returns.

I have not seen a projection that predicts the requiring of any of the capital in the fund.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

I suppose one should to factor in your marginal tax rate as well when deciding when to start CPP. Depending on the size of your RRSP and income from taxable accounts, mandatory RRIF withdrawals combined with delaying CPP to 70 could easily result in your CPP taxed at a +40% marginal rate.


----------



## crooked beat (Jan 19, 2011)

When to start CPP when you retire at age 55? 

Worked part time from age 16 to age 23.5. Contributed to CPP based on part time wages.
Then worked full time from age 23.5 to age 55.25. Contributed the max CPP each of those years.

There will therefore be quite a few years of non contribution before I start to collect CPP.

I am thinking delaying until absolutely necessary is still the correct procedure?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Answers to your:

First question: Earliest is age 60. Latest (deferral) is age 70. Even you're 55 now.

Second question: No one knows (other than yourself) about delaying taking CPP until absolutely necessary ... or is the "correct" procedure.

If you want a calculation of what to expect at age 60, 65 or 70, you can ask Dogger1953 on this forum. He's the CPP expert.


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

I have a similar contribution profile with part time work from my teens into my early 20's and then max contributions until retirement retirement at 50 next year. 
I think you need to take into consideration how you're going to jigsaw puzzle your portfolio into your desired retirement income stream. For me, since I don't have a DB pension, I'm going to try to maximize my CPP by holding off until age 70, to somewhat serve as "longevity insurance" and allow me to possibly be more aggressive with the income stream from the rest of my portfolio. 
I previously asked Dogger about a very rough estimation formula and I think I'll still come out with a larger payment at 70 than 65 (though my original question to him was 60 vs 65) even with a lot of 0 contribution years. 
(My max contribution years) / (Years used for max monthly benefit) * (Max Benefit) * (Penalty/Bonus) = Rough Monthly Benefit


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

milhouse said:


> I previously asked Dogger about a very rough estimation formula and I think I'll still come out with a larger payment at 70 than 65 (though my original question to him was 60 vs 65) even with a lot of 0 contribution years.


You will definitely get a larger payment at 70 than 65 -- as a retired person that's a pure deferral period at an 8.4% increase per year. 
You will get a larger payment at 65 than at 60, too. The payment increases of 7.2% a year from 60-65 will more than offset adding zeros to your contribution history.


----------



## crooked beat (Jan 19, 2011)

fireseeker said:


> You will definitely get a larger payment at 70 than 65 -- as a retired person that's a pure deferral period at an 8.4% increase per year.
> You will get a larger payment at 65 than at 60, too. The payment increases of 7.2% a year from 60-65 will more than offset adding zeros to your contribution history.



That eases my mind, I was worried about those years on none contribution. 
Thank you!


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

crooked beat said:


> When to start CPP when you retire at age 55?
> 
> Worked part time from age 16 to age 23.5. Contributed to CPP based on part time wages.
> Then worked full time from age 23.5 to age 55.25. Contributed the max CPP each of those years.
> ...


Lets say from age 18 to 24 you worked half time and made half of max contributions. Those 6 yrs combined could give you 3 max years. Then you worked FT for 32 years so you'd have (32 +3) 35 max yrs total. But you contributed in 38 years.

It requires 34.86 yrs at age 60 to receive the max (reduced) age 60 pension and you cannot use all of your partial years because you can only use 34.86 years, not all 38 years of your contributions. So for age 60 you'd have slightly less than 33.5 yrs years. However at age 65 you require 39 Max years for max pension (and can only use 39 years). So if you start CPP at 65 you will not get max pension but will receive 35/39 of max. If you delay CPP to age 70 you will get 142% of your 35/39 age 65 amount. If you do delay to age 70 the max pension age 65 amount for that year (the year you turn 70) will be used to establish your age 65 amount and then the 42% is added to it. 

There are child rearing dropout provisions which can effect the calculation as well but suspect none apply.

In my own case I retired at 55 and had had 36.8505 years and started my CPP at 65, 7 mths. I would have delayed to 70 except the spousal survivor benefit is based on the age 65 amount not the age 70 amount.


----------



## crooked beat (Jan 19, 2011)

Retiredguy said:


> Lets say from age 18 to 24 you worked half time and made half of max contributions. Those 6 yrs combined could give you 3 max years. Then you worked FT for 32 years so you'd have (32 +3) 35 max yrs total. But you contributed in 38 years.
> 
> It requires 34.86 yrs at age 60 to receive the max (reduced) age 60 pension and you cannot use all of your partial years because you can only use 34.86 years, not all 38 years of your contributions. So for age 60 you'd have slightly less than 33.5 yrs years. However at age 65 you require 39 Max years for max pension (and can only use 39 years). So if you start CPP at 65 you will not get max pension but will receive 35/39 of max. If you delay CPP to age 70 you will get 142% of your 35/39 age 65 amount. If you do delay to age 70 the max pension age 65 amount for that year (the year you turn 70) will be used to establish your age 65 amount and then the 42% is added to it.
> 
> ...


Thank you! A most clear explanation of the thinking behind to actually 'when" to start CPP.


----------



## crooked beat (Jan 19, 2011)

A wrinkle: Spouse is 4 years older than me. So it looks like I should start at age 65 as should my spouse.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

crooked beat said:


> A wrinkle: Spouse is 4 years older than me. So it looks like I should start at age 65 as should my spouse.


Why does this fact change anything? I am not saying it should or shouldn't, but based on your initial post I am not following what has led you to this conclusion



crooked beat said:


> When to start CPP when you retire at age 55?
> 
> Worked part time from age 16 to age 23.5. Contributed to CPP based on part time wages.
> Then worked full time from age 23.5 to age 55.25. Contributed the max CPP each of those years.
> ...


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Doug Runchey provided some support to this post. Here is a good answer I think:








When to take your Canada Pension Plan benefit


When to take your Canada Pension Plan benefit Readers of this blog will know I’m many years away from full-on retirement. This means I’ve got a couple of decades to worry about when to take m…




www.myownadvisor.ca





Going further still, if you expect to live past age 84 or 85, based on this example and as a general rule of thumb, that’s the breakeven age to delay CPP until age 70 vs. age 65. 

It's also a tax issue as well re: when to take CPP.


----------



## crooked beat (Jan 19, 2011)

londoncalling said:


> Why does this fact change anything? I am not saying it should or shouldn't, but based on your initial post I am not following what has led you to this conclusion


I don't think it does change anything. 
Other than survivor benefits? 
If one of us dies before CPP has started, I believe that the age difference would make a subtle difference in the amount? But I am not sure on this.


----------



## crooked beat (Jan 19, 2011)

My Own Advisor said:


> Doug Runchey provided some support to this post. Here is a good answer I think:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you.

We both come from a line of long lived family members. All of my aunts and uncles are still alive. 
My spouse has a similar family genetic background.
Luck of the draw?


----------



## CAP (Apr 20, 2021)

Folks might be interested in this case we did.








When to Take CPP in Retirement - A Case Study - Cashflows and Portfolios


When to take CPP in retirement is a decision many Canadians face and want answers to. This case study will help you with that decision.




www.cashflowsandportfolios.com





The reader had a great pension but was genuinely concerned about when to take CPP and then if that impacts OAS.

Turns out, due to great pension, unavoidable. Definitely something to consider.


----------

