# What account should I take my income from?



## crgf1k (Aug 8, 2015)

I'm 44 and retired, and I have a RRSP, LIRA, TFSA, and un-registered accounts. Obviously I can't take anything out of the LIRA, but which account should I draw from first? Since I only spend about $11k per year right now, should I use this as an opportunity to get money out of my RRSP? It's possible that when I'm much older my portfolio could be larger, and maybe I'll find myself in a position to draw a more conventionally-sized income haha.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

There's been a few discussions about this very question. Do some searching about RRSP drawdown strategies.
http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/128777-A-strong-tax-case-for-early-RRSP-drawdowns

Various folks have different strategies. Mine is to maximize RRSP drawdown during periods of low/no income, so as to at least use up my personal amount but at a rate that will make the projected minimums after 71 reasonably low.

The general consensus seems to be that you'd leave your TFSA to last -- keep it topped up each year with RRSP withdrawals and only really draw it down after everything else is gone.



crgf1k said:


> Obviously I can't take anything out of the LIRA.


Not necessarily obvious, and likely something you should get the details on. Triggers for getting into LIRAs are age, if the LIRA amount is "small", if you have no other income, or if there is certain types of financial hardship. You *might* qualify to unlock your LIRA and combine it with your other holdings.


----------



## crgf1k (Aug 8, 2015)

Sounds good, thanks I'll check out that thread.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

This article discusses it in detail. The tax rates in the article are from AB, and are from a couple of years ago before the ability to defer OAS to age 70.
http://www.rgafinancial.com/articles/What-Account-Should-I-Draw-From-First-In-Retirement.pdf

If you withdraw from non-registered, the taxes on the withdrawn amount will typically be low... taxed only on the capital gains, and at half the tax rate as a withdrawal from an RRSP. RRSP withdrawals are taxed at your full effective marginal rate. Therefore withdrawing from non-registered incurs lower taxes in the short-term, therefore leaving more money in your accounts to grow and compound.

Tempering this are a number of factors that may make it more tax effective to withdraw some RRSP funds before mandatory RRIF conversion at age 71. 1) If mandatory minimum RRIF withdrawals will push your income into OAS clawback range, it may make sense to withdraw enough RRSP or RRIF funds before age 71 to minimize or eliminate OAS clawback later. 2) For a couple, when the first spouse dies, the second spouse inherits the RRSP or RRIF, which may result in OAS clawback. This is dealing with unknowns like lifespan, but you can use life expectancy to do some what-if analysis. 3) On death, the estate's investments undergo a deemed disposition, and taxes are due on the capital gains of the portfolio. This might push taxes into a much higher tax bracket if capital gains are high. If the investor desires to leave an estate to beneficiaries it may make sense to withdraw from RRSP early to minimize taxes on deemed disposition at death.

So the answer is it depends, and each investor needs to do their own analysis based on their portfolio size, marital status, expected lifespan and desire to leave an inheritance.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

If you're only spending 11k/year, that's about the same amount as the personal exemption, so if you withdraw from RRSP you should be able to do so tax-free - assuming you don't have any other income. But if you have income from your non-registered account or other activities, you should probably run some scenarios in tax software or at taxtips.ca to see what the impact is.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Yes, OP definately needs to run scenarios. OP has not provided nearly enough info to answer this question and frankly shouldn't. 
For example, we don't know the size of your accounts and if you intend to live on an adjusted $11k for the rest of your life - actually, I don't believe you can live on less than $1k/month for the rest of your life - not going to happen.

For example, you could melt down your RRSP but then you forego tax-deferred growth, and if your non-registered continues to grow 'too' much you could end up with OAS clawback regardless of the melt-down, and in any event OAS is unlikely to remain at current levels far into the future (it will be reduced). Then there is the need to estimate your taxes every year before year end, taking into account all of your sources of income to determine how much to pull from your RRSP, etc.

Do some searching on your own for more discussion on tools:
http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/117049-Calculating-estimated-amount-I-would-have-upon-retirement?p=1631330&highlight=rrifmetic#post1631330


----------



## crgf1k (Aug 8, 2015)

Thanks for the info and links everyone, I'll read up on it.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

crgf1k said:


> I'm 44 and retired, and I have a RRSP, LIRA, TFSA, and un-registered accounts. Obviously I can't take anything out of the LIRA, but which account should I draw from first? .


Actually in most provinces you probably can take money out of the LIRA. I know Ontario allows you to withdraw money for various reasons, but for you, I would probably suggest financial hardship. Although that may sound like something for someone else, it is not. All you have to do to qualify is not make much income. Sounds like you meet that test. I would take out enough to get below the personal exemption of $11,600 and this program would allow you to get at money that is not easy to get at. You can make one withdraw per year from an Ontario LIRA.

http://www.moneysmartsblog.com/how-to-unlock-an-ontario-locked-in-retirement-account-lira-lrif/


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

OptsyEagle said:


> Actually in most provinces you probably can take money out of the LIRA.


Personally I would encourage unlocking the LIRA on principle -- I have a hard time with systems that are locking in my own money "for my own good". It's a sort of paternalistic thing perpetuated by a vindictive streak from the company whose pension you are checking out of.

It's an issue close to my heart since I had a close friend who lived like a mouse and died a pauper, whilst holding a LIRA that he never received proper advice on accessing while he was alive.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

gardner said:


> Personally I would encourage unlocking the LIRA on principle --


Which is why I mentioned it. I feel the same way.


----------



## crgf1k (Aug 8, 2015)

Thanks, ya I'll plan on unlocking the LIRA. I'm not planning on spending that money for a long time, but if I can unlock it, I will.


----------



## OrganicRain (Nov 27, 2016)

https://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/pensions/financial_hardship/Pages/financial_hardship_2012_budget.aspx

Its relatively easy to unlock due to "financial hardship" in Ontario. I plan on starting a frugal retirement later this year at age 45, unlocking my LIRA a little each year will be my first point of income, followed by reg RRSP's, non registered, and if need be TFSA's. I am going to try to not touch the TFSA's until later in life, once OAS, CCP and GIS (hopefully) kicks in.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

gardner said:


> Personally I would encourage unlocking the LIRA on principle -- I have a hard time with systems that are locking in my own money "for my own good". It's a sort of paternalistic thing perpetuated by a vindictive streak from the company whose pension you are checking out of ...


I don't think the company cares one way or the other as once one has left the pension plan, I believe they are out of the picture.
AFAICT, it is the gov't that is worried about people spending the retirement money on other stuff before retirement.


Cheers


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> I don't think the company cares one way or the other as once one has left the pension plan, I believe they are out of the picture.
> AFAICT, *it is the gov't that is worried about people spending the retirement money on other stuff before retirement.*
> 
> 
> Cheers


 ... that's an oxymoron.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

But you know what Eclectic means. There are government regulations designed to protect/preserve pensions, including pensions that are moving outside of a company to a different trustee. And yes, the regulations also protect people 'for their own good'. I think there are far fewer responsible people who, in the absence of lock-in regs, would retain their pension than there are those who would cash it in if they could. Why should we and future generations (through the government) be on the hook for impoverished seniors because they pissed away what was intended to be their retirement income.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

And those regulations vary by province.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> > ... AFAICT, it is the gov't that is worried about people spending the retirement money on other stuff before retirement.
> ...


No worse than being told that the company needs to cut allowances and layoffs as "business has changed" plus "the company can't afford people lining their pockets" while the upper management is being given increases while checking in with competitors indicated that only one company was cutting the allowances.

Regardless - the key point is the LIRA and it's variations rules come from the pension authority.
I haven't heard of companies lobbying vindictively to determine what the requirements are for pension funds they no longer control. 




OnlyMyOpinion said:


> But you know what Eclectic means. There are government regulations designed to protect/preserve pensions ...
> I think there are far fewer responsible people who, in the absence of lock-in regs, would retain their pension than there are those who would cash it in if they could.


Part of it is that I suspect the people on CMF are far more financially literate and capable. I could be wrong but when I read of the amount of company matching money for retirement that despite being educated about it, workers are skipping getting it - it does not seem to be all that strange that those less capable might want to dip into the pension proceeds early.


Cheers


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Isn't this supposed to be a "free" country? I.e. those people's prerogatives on what they want to do with their LIRA$? Do you seriously think a government or those with "authority" cares about how people (of course, other than those dictating the terms) finance their retirement? Hint: Or is it more like the tax $ they're concerned with?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Isn't this supposed to be a "free" country? I.e. those people's prerogatives on what they want to do with their LIRA$? Do you seriously think a government or those with "authority" cares about how people (of course, other than those dictating the terms) finance their retirement? Hint: Or is it more like the tax $ they're concerned with?


One does not have the freedom to do what they want with their RPPs which is what this is all about. The pension authority making some attempt to protect amateurs and over-confident skilled investors from themselves. 

FWIW, some companies stopped supporting DC Plans because employees were making terrible investing decisions and the companies did not want to feel any heat later when the employee was destitute at retirement time. They are instead now just supporting Group RRSPs and let employees do face plants if they so choose to do so.

Added: One such company was my original employer. Many close working friends of mine made some terrible decisions when they opted for the DC Plan option. They should have known better but one cannot assume bright people in their working profession can even balance a cheque book.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... Isn't this supposed to be a "free" country? I.e. those people's prerogatives on what they want to do with their LIRA$?


Not sure why a LIRA restrictions would be such a big deal when for company pensions as well as gov't pensions, the age of some form of payout is age 55 or later (I believe it is 60 for CPP).

The LIRA seems to be the least restrictive as some are allowed to get money before age 55.




Beaver101 said:


> ... Do you seriously think a government or those with "authority" cares about how people (of course, other than those dictating the terms) finance their retirement? Hint: Or is it more like the tax $ they're concerned with?


Absolutely it is about tax dollars ... where the gov't allows the LIRA to be on a different schedule to the source company pension, those what spend it are likely to be increasing the GIS/OAS payments.


Cheers


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Regardless, it's still "their=employees" money unless the company is on the notion that money is leaving the pension pool with a concern on solvency of which the regulator is supposedly be monitoring?



> ... The LIRA seems to be the least restrictive as some are allowed to get money before age 55.


 ... it was only the last decade(?) that the restrictions on "locked-in" funds were loosened "abit".... because of small amounts, "financial" hardship, dying, etc.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> One does not have the freedom to do what they want with their RPPs which is what this is all about. The pension authority making some attempt to protect amateurs and over-confident skilled investors from themselves.
> 
> *FWIW, some companies stopped supporting DC Plans because employees were making terrible investing decisions and the companies did not want to feel any heat later when the employee was destitute at retirement time*. They are instead now just supporting Group RRSPs and let employees do face plants if they so choose to do so.
> 
> Added:* One such company was my original employer.* Many close working friends of mine made some terrible decisions when they opted for the DC Plan option. They should have known better but one cannot assume bright people in their working profession can even balance a cheque book.


... ? DC plans are similar to group RRSP, only more restrictive with the contribution amounts set by the company. What were your company allowing its employees to invest in? Nortel?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I don't recall since that was back in the '90s. IIRC, all or mostly mutual funds with reduced fees, and don't recall whether it was 10 or 20 or 30 alternatives on the menu. Think quite a few professionals jumped on a few technology options, i.e. the dotcom bandwagon. The choices probably should have been restricted to broad indices. FWIW, I stayed in the DB pension plan given my years of service at the time, and am no doubt better off because of that decision (but will never know).


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Regardless, it's still "their=employees" money unless the company is on the notion that money is leaving the pension pool with a concern on solvency of which the regulator is supposedly be monitoring?


Not sure why from your POV, the source company is driving the regulations ... as I commented earlier, I doubt the company cares one way or the other as when the $$ leave - their involvement ends.
Since we are talking about the age restrictions when the holder can access the proceeds, solvency of the pension that was left has nothing to do with it. Determining the size of what is sent to the LIRA might be something the company would have an interest in but that's a different topic.




Beaver101 said:


> ... it was only the last decade(?) that the restrictions on "locked-in" funds were loosened "abit".... because of small amounts, "financial" hardship, dying, etc.


Are we shifting to a historical discussion instead of the current environment?

The main point is pension or LIRA, access is restricted. It's not like the pension was accessible at any age then transferring to a LIRA introduced a new restriction.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Beaver101 said:
> 
> 
> > ... ? DC plans are similar to group RRSP, only more restrictive with the contribution amounts set by the company. What were your company allowing its employees to invest in? Nortel?
> ...


My co-worker sold just before the low in late 2008 then took around five years before moving back into equities.
Lots of choices available at a reasonable cost might make no different to one's results.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Indeed. Untimely or inept decision making can be the biggest risk of all.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> Not sure why from your POV, the source company is driving the regulations ... as I commented earlier, I doubt the company cares one way or the other as* when the $$ leave* - their involvement ends.


 ... oh? I don't disagree that the company's "involvement" supposedly ends once the money has been transferred out of the pension fund but don't quite agree with the "when" and to your next point, the amount. 



> ... Determining the size of what is sent to the LIRA might be something the company would have an interest in but that's a different topic.






> Are we shifting to a historical discussion instead of the current environment?
> 
> *The main point is pension or LIRA, access is restricted. * It's not like the pension was accessible at any age then transferring to a LIRA introduced a new restriction.
> 
> Cheers


 ... yes, don't disagree with the "restrictions" or now the "loosened" restrictions but disagree with the "for-the-good" of the pensioner (inept or not) not-to-unlock their LIRA.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Indeed. Untimely or inept decision making can be the biggest risk of all.


 ... still their choice and ultimately their "responsibility".


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I may have missed this, but if the issue is the rules around LIRA's after transfer from a DC pension, isn't the solution just to keep your money and not participate in the DC pension (which is after all, equally 'onerous')? Of course you'd lose the typical employer matching, but if control of your money is the priority, you would have to accept that loss.
Are some DC pensions mandatory for employees?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I don't disagree that the company's "involvement" supposedly ends once the money has been transferred out of the pension fund but don't quite agree with the "when" ...


So what's your view on when the company stops being involved with those particular pension $$?




Beaver101 said:


> ... yes, don't disagree with the "restrictions" or now the "loosened" restrictions but disagree with the "for-the-good" of the pensioner (inept or not) not-to-unlock their LIRA.


Based on what co-worker's talked about for investing pension $$, the lack of interest and how much is being left on the table where there is company matching being ignored ... my impression is that is a big help.

There would need to be more of an unbiased research to confirm.




Beaver101 said:


> AltaRed said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed. Untimely or inept decision making can be the biggest risk of all.
> ...


Can you point me to the legislation that cuts off GIS/OAS for people who spent their pension money early?

AFAICT, this does no exist ... which IMO puts the gov't on the hook for the combination of bad moves or if it were allowed, spending the pension proceeds early.



Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I may have missed this, but *if the issue is the rules around LIRA's after transfer from a DC pension*, isn't the solution just to keep your money and not participate in the DC pension (which is after all, equally 'onerous')?


Actually both of mine have been DB pensions going into the LIRA so it seems more like "pension proceeds" than a particular flavour.
I also don't see why the LIRA rules are an exceptional issue considering the originating pension AFAICT does not allow access before age 55 or later.

Throw in that one can invest as one pleases with a broker so the main restriction is not being able to withdraw early.




OnlyMyOpinion said:


> ... Of course you'd lose the typical employer matching, but if control of your money is the priority, you would have to accept that loss.
> Are some DC pensions mandatory for employees?


I haven't done a survey to be able to be sure ... but all of the DC pensions I had details to (including the one I wasn't eligible for) were mandatory.
Some had an optional component where the company matched the optional contributions to a cap.


Had I had the choice of doubling the money as I contributed ... I'd rather make adjustments elsewhere than give up the doubled growth, but that's me.
For better or worse, Billions being left to pump up company profits instead of becoming part of the employee's retirement assets.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ... still their choice and ultimately their "responsibility".


But it ends up being the taxpayer that funds them if they are inept/incompetent. I personally don't care if someone walks into sharp objects, but I do care somewhat if their incompetence becomes a burden on taxpayers...which includes me. If it is going to be a free for all, then the social net needs to be taken away too.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Here're some simplistic (but realistic) scenarios of "unlocking" the LIRA and their impact on the tax base. Keep in mind the amounts are going to be "small":

1. Take the money and put a downpayment on a toy (hotrod, boat, 5 carat diamond ring, or whatever one fancies) ... keeps the economy going with sales revenues (aka keeping jobs), and G$Tax for the government's coffers.

2. Take the money to fund medical care, expenses, etc.,.. possibly for end of life. Either way, that keeps jobs and extends a potential "taxpayer's life" for one or few years?

3. Take the money and fund a kid's education. Well, a future "taxpayer" for sure.

4. Take the money and pay for the rent, groceries, etc. to fund daily living. Again, keeping jobs and the economy going here.

5. Take the money and invest it - non-registered or registered. The financial sector will sure be bouyant as with other investors (more so for the smart ones than the non-smart ones who unlocked their LIRA).

All the above are win-win situations. I can't see it being detrimental to the social net here. An example is below.


As for the concern, 


> ... If it is going to be a free for all, then the social net needs to be taken away too.


... unfortunately, life isn't fair as we're told. E.g. regardless one in Ontario is making $100K or $1M, the maximum premium payable is $900 only?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> So what's your view on when the company stops being involved with those particular pension $$?


 ... if those pension $ is from a DB plan, the company never stops being involved. It's only when the pension $ from a DC plan or the DB $ that has been transferred over to a LIRA already or out of the company's pension fund at which point the pensioner/ex-employee can decide what they want to do with that $. As long as "your" pension $ is the company's pension fund, you're not in control of that $. 



> Based on what co-worker's talked about for investing pension $$, the lack of interest and how much is being left on the table where there is company matching being ignored ... my impression is that is a big help.


 ... rather hard to be believe (lack of knowledge?) based on the industry you're in (consulting?). No futher comments on your industry's financial savyness or more like no need for:



> There would need to be more of an unbiased research to confirm.





> Can you point me to the legislation that cuts off GIS/OAS for people who spent their pension money early?
> 
> AFAICT, this does no exist ... which IMO puts the gov't on the hook for the combination of bad moves or if it were allowed, spending the pension proceeds early.


 ... I would be more concerned about the funding/solvency of those pension funds than those who unlocked their LIRA early. It's like comparing a watermelon to a kiwi or Bllion$ to some lowly Million$?

At least unlocking a LIRA can't initiate a recall of funds like the latest with Sears: unbelieveable

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sears-pension-overpayment-1.4713460


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... if those pension $ is from a DB plan, the company never stops being involved.
> It's *only when the pension $ from a DC plan or the DB $ that has been transferred over to a LIRA* ...


The transfer to LIRA *is* the situation under discussion when you go back and check post number nine that recommends unlocking a LIRA where the company is alleged to be vindictively putting an age limit on the LIRA as well as my questioning in post number thirteen whether the company has anything do with it, after the transfer.

Your post number eighteen also talks what people are doing with their LIRAs so I am not sure why this different scenario is being throw into the discussion.


For the record - should one have chosen to stay in the pension plan, then yes the company will still be involved.




Beaver101 said:


> ... rather hard to be believe (lack of knowledge?) based on the industry you're in (consulting?).


Consultants aren't financially inept or financially unskilled?
Then I guess you will have difficulty believing that one said


> It's too complicated to figure out whether to switch from DB to DC. If I don't have enough money in retirement, I'll go be a bag lady on Young Street.


Either way - the financial ineptitude spans multiple industries over at least three decades (you didn't think I only worked in one, right?).
Keep in mind that your belief or skepticism changes nothing about what did or did not happen .... but if it makes you sleep better at night, by all means - believe what you will. 




Beaver101 said:


> ... I would be more concerned about the funding/solvency of those pension funds than those who unlocked their LIRA early. It's like comparing a watermelon to a kiwi or Bllion$ to some lowly Million$?


Maybe ... but then again, I keep reading about how DB pensions aren't being offered anymore where the average working person has to expect to work for multiple employers - which I would expect to drive up the number of people with LIRAs. 

I've certainly seen several recommending to those asking whether to stay in the pension or to take the commuted value (CV) to be skeptical the health of the pension so taking the CV (i.e. transfer to LIRA) is the way to protect oneself.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Here're some simplistic (but realistic) scenarios of "unlocking" the LIRA and their impact on the tax base. Keep in mind the amounts are going to be "small" ... All the above are win-win situations. I can't see it being detrimental to the social net here.


Doesn't the requirement it be a small amount automatically limit how much harm to the social net?

After all ... is not the point of:


gardner said:


> Personally I would encourage unlocking the LIRA on principle -- I have a hard time with systems that are locking in my own money "for my own good" ...


to suggest that six figure or more LIRAs also be unlocked ... which would increase the scope of what the potential benefit/harm is?


Cheers


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> The transfer to LIRA *is* the situation under discussion when you go back and check post number nine that recommends unlocking a LIRA where the company is alleged to be vindictively putting an age limit on the LIRA as well as my questioning in post number thirteen whether the company has anything do with it, after the transfer.
> 
> Your post number eighteen also talks what people are doing with their LIRAs so I am not sure why this different scenario is being throw into the discussion.


 ... my point remains - I don't care what people do with their LIRAs or $$$. It's none of my business. Now that the restrictions are loosened, all is the better.
...



> Consultants aren't financially inept or financially unskilled?


 .. neither.


> Then I guess you will have difficulty believing that one said ...


 .. that's what I said, I'm having a hard time in believing that. As for that colleague of yours who said that, it would be very difficult for her to be a "bag-lady" (unless she's planning to live off those Hermés, LV, Coach, IVT or whatever designer bags), and barring she's of sound mind. I think she would have some level of intelligence to start off with by working in an office? 



> Either way - the financial ineptitude spans multiple industries over at least three decades (you didn't think I only worked in one, right?).


 ... in that case, retirement will be decades away so what's a LIRA?



> Keep in mind that your belief or skepticism changes nothing about what did or did not happen .... but if it makes you sleep better at night, by all means - believe what you will.


 ... well yeah, what happened or didn't happen is reality. Like I said above, I couldn't care less what people do with their LIRA. It wasn't me who is "concerned" with if people want to blow their LIRA and have to subsists on government hand-outs that the working stiffs (including me) have to pay for. That's the tax and welfare systems we have now.



> Maybe ... but then again, I keep reading about how DB pensions aren't being offered anymore where the average working person has to expect to work for multiple employers - which I would expect to drive up the number of people with LIRAs.


 ... agree, no doubt.



> I've certainly seen several recommending to those asking whether to stay in the pension or *to take the commuted value (CV) to be skeptical the health of the pension so taking the CV (i.e. transfer to LIRA) is the way to protect oneself.*


 ... yes, it's a consideration (not sure it was a recommendation?) for those in a shaky industry with a DB plan. Even then, the CV will be adjusted notionally far less to account for the outflow or potentially shortfall from the pension pool.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> Doesn't the requirement it be a small amount automatically limit how much harm to the social net?
> 
> After all ... is not the point of:
> 
> ...


 ... wouldn't a good chunk of that 6-figure be taxable? in which case, what's the harm to the social net work?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> > ... Consultants aren't financially inept or financially unskilled?
> ...


Odd that my colleagues clearly were financially inept.




Beaver101 said:


> ... that's what I said, I'm having a hard time in believing that. As for that colleague of yours who said that, it would be very difficult for her to be a "bag-lady" (unless she's planning to live off those Hermés, LV, Coach, IVT or whatever designer bags), and barring she's of sound mind. I think she would have some level of intelligence to start off with by working in an office?


You'd think intelligence would help but I have seen some bright people make astoundingly bad financial moves. 




Beaver101 said:


> ... Either way - the financial ineptitude spans multiple industries over at least three decades (you didn't think I only worked in one, right?).


 ... in that case, retirement will be decades away so what's a LIRA?[/QUOTE]I'd don't see how my time to retirement relates to the financial skills or ineptitude of my colleagues ... so beyond noting the lack of connection - I have no comment. 




Beaver101 said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> > ... I've certainly seen several recommending to those asking whether to stay in the pension or to take the commuted value (CV) to be skeptical the health of the pension so taking the CV (i.e. transfer to LIRA) is the way to protect oneself.[.QUOTE] ... yes, it's a consideration (not sure it was a recommendation?) for those in a shaky industry with a DB plan.
> ...


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... wouldn't a good chunk of that 6-figure be taxable? in which case, what's the harm to the social net work?


From what was posted on CMF - there was a taxable 6-figure amount plus a 6-figure amount going into the LIRA.


Cheers


----------

