# TFSA limit for 2019 will be $6000



## Mookie (Feb 29, 2012)

Looks like the limit is finally going up by another $500...

I miss the good old days of 2015 when it was $10,000, but what can you do?

https://www.taxtips.ca/tfsa/contributions.htm


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

Vote better next time ?


----------



## Mookie (Feb 29, 2012)

Koogie said:


> Vote better next time ?


I voted better last time, but apparently I was not in the majority :apologetic:


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Mookie said:


> Looks like the limit is finally going up by another $500...
> 
> I miss the good old days of 2015 when it was $10,000, but what can you do?
> 
> https://www.taxtips.ca/tfsa/contributions.htm


It says 'at the current rate of inflation, it will be $6000'. CRA has not confirmed that yet.


----------



## SixesAndSevens (Dec 4, 2009)

Mookie said:


> I miss the good old days of 2015 when it was $10,000, but what can you do?


tfsa was $10,000 only for 1 year (6 months, to be more accurate).
but don't forget that the $10,000 limit in 2015 was fixed...did not have the inflation adjustment.
eventually, inflation would have caught up but your limit would have stayed at $10,000.
this $500 bump every 4 years is better, imho....esp. for millennials and younger investors.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

SixesAndSevens said:


> tfsa was $10,000 only for 1 year (6 months, to be more accurate).
> but don't forget that the $10,000 limit in 2015 was fixed...did not have the inflation adjustment.
> eventually, inflation would have caught up but your limit would have stayed at $10,000.
> this $500 bump every 4 years is better, imho....esp. for millennials and younger investors.


I think I'd rather have the $10K now rather than wait 30 years for it to get there. Also, just because it was fixed in 2015, doesn't mean that it would never have increased in that 30 years.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Thank goodness it wasn't kept at $10k.

It was entirely unjustified in its premise. 
I much prefer public policy and debate be based on data and facts.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

I agree with BoringInvestor. The increase to $10K was a transparent vote-buying gimmick by Harper. (Not unlike Trudeau's promise to put a stop to Canada Post's plans to convert almost everybody to community mailboxes. But that's another story.) Like everyone else here I am taking advantage of TFSAs, because I would be a fool not to. But its wisdom as good public policy is very much open to debate.


----------



## SixesAndSevens (Dec 4, 2009)

oh i totally agree that $10,000 TFSA limit is unjustified...it is a huge tax break for the upper class voters.
even $6,000 is getting high now...
lots of super wealthy are transferring and hiding their taxable investments in Tfsa now...

but given the two choices between inflation indexation and fixed $10K, i prefer to former.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

I don't agree w the rhetoric it was for only higher income investors. It is an option too vs the RRSP. 18% of $50k or whatever the avg wage is is $9,000. Liberals hacked it back because their retirement policies were to get everyone more dependent on their state run and managed CPP, a payroll tax in fact, which they increased at a cost to employers and individuals yet they take all the credit.

Many can see this craftiness and would also rather manage their own retirement investments vs being nannied by the state


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

BoringInvestor said:


> Thank goodness it wasn't kept at $10k.
> 
> It was entirely unjustified in its premise.
> I much prefer public policy and debate be based on data and facts.


I didn't realize that a tax _cut_ ever needed any justification at all. "Returning tax payer's own money to themselves"
But I guess that's the world we live in now. Funny how the line can be so plainly drawn at such a small and definitive increment to apparently mean so very much about public policy and the way voters want their government to act -- $5500? Great! - $10000? _Unjustifiable_.

Thank goodness you have all the facts and data...


----------



## Mookie (Feb 29, 2012)

Personally, I think the way TFSA limits were implemented is a form of age discrimination, not some huge tax break for the so called “upper class”. 

Consider Albert, aged 18, Bob, aged 50 and Charlie, aged 80, all of which will live to age 90, and all of which earn median incomes in Canada. Albert, Bob and Charlie are all careful savers, and each one maxes their TFSA every year throughout their lives. 

When Albert dies, he will have been able to make 72 annual maximum TFSA contributions. 

When Bob dies, he will have been able to make 50 annual maximum TFSA contributions.

When Charlie dies, he will have been able to make only 20 annual maximum TFSA contributions.

Neither of these three gents were any more wealthy than the next, except in the sense that financially responsible people generally become more wealthy as they age, because they have worked and saved (and paid taxes) longer. All else being equal, “poor” young Albert will be the wealthiest of them all in the end as he was able to tax shelter the most over his lifetime.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I expect the gov't to cap lifetime contributions at some level... as they did with capital gains, so it is likely a moot point. The 18 year old will never make 72 annual payments. The gov't cannot afford so much wealth to go untaxed, especially when it will escape being means tested for social programs like OAS and GIS.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

peterk said:


> I didn't realize that a tax _cut_ ever needed any justification at all. "Returning tax payer's own money to themselves"
> But I guess that's the world we live in now. Funny how the line can be so plainly drawn at such a small and definitive increment to apparently mean so very much about public policy and the way voters want their government to act -- $5500? Great! - $10000? _Unjustifiable_.
> 
> Thank goodness you have all the facts and data...


The Conservatives proposed a change to the accepted status quo - it was on them to provide justification for it.

An overwhelming majority of Canadians did not max their TFSAs - so as a matter of a 'need' it wasn't there.

Certainly I can entertain the notion that 'any tax cut (or avoidance in this case) is a good tax cut', but from our political leaders it's beholden on them to explain not just their desire to reduce the size of government and their plan to do so, but what the impact of that change is and what exactly will be reduced or eliminated (and not just vague, near-meaningless terms like 'efficiencies').


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Mookie said:


> All else being equal, “poor” young Albert will be the wealthiest of them all in the end as he was able to tax shelter the most over his lifetime.


No, no you must be mistaken. The TFSA isn't tax sheltering, rather it's _"hiding their taxable investments in Tfsa"_ according to CMF member SixesAndSevens. Funny, I never thought that my TFSA was "hiding my taxable investments". The government knows exactly what I have in my TFSA.

ltr


----------



## SixesAndSevens (Dec 4, 2009)

Mookie said:


> Consider Albert, aged 18, Bob, aged 50 and Charlie, aged 80, all of which will live to age 90, and all of which earn median incomes in Canada. Albert, Bob and Charlie are all careful savers, and each one maxes their TFSA every year throughout their lives.
> When Albert dies, he will have been able to make 72 annual maximum TFSA contributions.
> When Bob dies, he will have been able to make 50 annual maximum TFSA contributions.
> When Charlie dies, he will have been able to make only 20 annual maximum TFSA contributions.


what? this makes no sense at all....
albert is the youngest so it is obvious he will make more contributions than Charlie, who is already 80.

and oh btw, don't forget that Charlie most likely has had a cushy comfy defined benefit pension from his gummint or railroad or ma bell telephone company job...
bob is also likely to have either a defined benefit or defined contribution pension.
it is the millennial Albert who has none of those...


----------



## tdiddy (Jan 7, 2015)

AltaRed said:


> I expect the gov't to cap lifetime contributions at some level... as they did with capital gains, so it is likely a moot point. The 18 year old will never make 72 annual payments. The gov't cannot afford so much wealth to go untaxed, especially when it will escape being means tested for social programs like OAS and GIS.


this will be interesting to see implemented wonder which politician will jump on that grenade haha


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

tdiddy said:


> this will be interesting to see implemented wonder which politician will jump on that grenade haha


Easy. Dress it up in class warfare rhetoric and people will howl for it to be capped.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

SixesAndSevens said:


> and oh btw, don't forget that Charlie most likely has had a cushy comfy defined benefit pension from his gummint or railroad or ma bell telephone company job...
> bob is also likely to have either a defined benefit or defined contribution pension.
> it is the millennial Albert who has none of those...


awww, the poor millennial. It's a shame they have it so bad.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

tdiddy said:


> this will be interesting to see implemented wonder which politician will jump on that grenade haha


A similar thing happened on Feb 22, 1994 when the $100k cap general gain exemption was taken away, but investors with unrealized cap gains could do a deemed disposition up to market value (and the $100k cap). It made little difference to the bulk of taxpayers but I remember doing meticulous calculations and record keeping to grab what I could.

Capping net contribution limits to the TFSA would be an easy sell as well. Look for it to happen at circa $100k or perhaps 2029, some 20 years into the program.


----------



## fplan (Feb 20, 2014)

just put life time contribution to max 100k per person. 

that will treat every on equally.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

SixesAndSevens said:


> oh i totally agree that $10,000 TFSA limit is unjustified...it is a huge tax break for the upper class voters.
> even $6,000 is getting high now...
> lots of super wealthy are transferring and hiding their taxable investments in Tfsa now...
> 
> but given the two choices between inflation indexation and fixed $10K, i prefer to former.


Wow do you know any of these super wealthy people who need to shelter $10k a year? I don't. I believe this is a tax break for the middle class.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Deleted


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> A similar thing happened on Feb 22, 1994 when the $100k cap general gain exemption was taken away, but investors with unrealized cap gains could do a deemed disposition up to market value (and the $100k cap). It made little difference to the bulk of taxpayers but I remember doing meticulous calculations and record keeping to grab what I could.
> 
> Capping net contribution limits to the TFSA would be an easy sell as well. Look for it to happen at circa $100k or perhaps 2029, some 20 years into the program.


Yes my Dad did it for his cottage and he was some pissed off when all his seniors exclusions were clawed back!


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

BoringInvestor said:


> The Conservatives proposed a change to the accepted status quo - it was on them to provide justification for it.
> 
> An overwhelming majority of Canadians did not max their TFSAs - so as a matter of a 'need' it wasn't there.
> 
> Certainly I can entertain the notion that 'any tax cut (or avoidance in this case) is a good tax cut', but from our political leaders it's beholden on them to explain not just their desire to reduce the size of government and their plan to do so, but what the impact of that change is and what exactly will be reduced or eliminated (and not just vague, near-meaningless terms like 'efficiencies').


There doesn't have to be a justification for returning taxpayer $. The budget was balanced in 2015 and they can bring forth any program they like. Would rather have them return taxpayer $ than have Liberals waste it away on their latest social pet projects or give it away to overseas special interests. Are the Liberals giving you any justification why they are running $19B deficits in good times? That is what you should be concerned about.

The TFSA is gaining in popularity as a substitute for the RRSP esp among younger and older age groups vs a supplement. The avg RRSP contribution is just over $5,000 , meaning ~ 50% put in more so a $10 k limit for the TFSA as an option is not unreasonable either


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

For the majority investing in TFSA over the next 3 years will probably be the worst investment. The coming bear markets will eat up a lot of TFSA


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

Jimmy said:


> ....
> 
> The TFSA is gaining in popularity as a substitute for the RRSP esp among younger and older age groups vs a supplement. The avg RRSP contribution is just over $5,000 , meaning ~ 50% put in more so a $10 k limit for the TFSA as an option is not unreasonable either


Uh 5,000 is the average, not the mean.
But I agree generally with your statement.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

kcowan said:


> Wow do you know any of these super wealthy people who need to shelter $10k a year? I don't. I believe this is a tax break for the middle class.


Knew a few really wealthy people over the years as a part of my profession. Keith is right on. TFSA is not worth the effort for super wealthy. Most don't bother with RSPS and RESPS either. They have better uses for their money.
TFSA, RSP, RESP are aimed squarely at the middle class voter - lower middle and upper - and the mass affluent.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The TFSA is not even that meaningful for a retiree with a $2-3 million portfolio. If anything, it is a successor holder/beneficiary benefit. For someone who is just in their 20s though, it might be the biggie in the stockpile.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

twa2w said:


> Uh 5,000 is the average, not the mean.
> But I agree generally with your statement.


Uh I know. That is why I used the ~. It means roughly.


----------



## SixesAndSevens (Dec 4, 2009)

kcowan said:


> Wow do you know any of these super wealthy people who need to shelter $10k a year? I don't.


Not $10K.
total TFSA room is $57,500 as of 2018.
another $6K for 2019 puts the total at $63,500.
...and that's per spouse.
a typical household with 2 adults can shelter $126K inside TFSA...



> I believe this is a tax break for the middle class.


you need a new definition of middle class...
median income in Canada is $70,000/year gross...before any taxes or payroll deductions.
i suppose you believe an individual making $70K gross, possibly $50K net after taxes and payroll deductions, can put away that much in TFSA?


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

SixesAndSevens said:


> i suppose you believe


Sure. Why not? Folks save for houses and cars and stuff. People above the median would get more use of it, sure. There will be low income levels below which saving is too difficult, but for middle income earners, the TFSA is sized reasonably, IMO.

The point is that for the truly high income/wealth holders, $6k or even $10K is chump change. Before I retired, I was a 1%er and was wanting to shelter a lot more than that, if I could.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

SixesAndSevens said:


> i suppose you believe an individual making $70K gross, possibly $50K net after taxes and payroll deductions, can put away that much in TFSA?


$6k per year with that salary? Certainly! As Gardner said, not likely possible with low income individuals making perhaps <$40k/yr gross. The general rule of thumb is paying yourself first at about 10% gross salary per year. Once a mortgage is paid off and there is no other consumer debt, the savings rate should go up orders of magnitude.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

SixesAndSevens said:


> i suppose you believe an individual making $70K gross, possibly $50K net after taxes and payroll deductions, can put away that much in TFSA?


If that is your definition of super wealthy then we have a conflict in terms...


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

kcowan said:


> If that is your definition of super wealthy then we have a conflict in terms...


That is for sure  

I guess it may depend on where you are coming from and your age. A super wealthy person to someone coming from a working background may be different than someone who's father was a CEO or surgeon.

Generally the mass affluent is defined as having liquid net worth of 250,000 to 1,000,000. This would not include the house rich cash poor Vancouverite.

Not sure how many mass affluent there are. 

But using people with over 1,000,000 liquid investable net worth, there is approx 360,000 folks. If we add in other forms of wealth to meet the 1,000,0000 wealth threshold, Canada has over 1 million of these.

There are a couple of categories of middle wealthy - usually 1 to 5million ( working class rich)

Then there is usually another category from 5 to 25 million.

The superweathly group is next and is generally defined as 25 to 30 million and up.

Then the group above that is the ultrahigh net worth. 100 million and up.

Or maybe I have these backwards. Definitions vary somewhat depending on who is doing the compliling and for what purpose. 

I used to think anyone with a million bucks was rich. Once I met and surpassed that, it suddenly didn't seem like much - especially once retired with little pension in an uncertain world :-(


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

SixesAndSevens said:


> oh i totally agree that $10,000 TFSA limit is unjustified...*it is a huge tax break for the upper class voters*.
> even $6,000 is getting high now...
> lots of super wealthy are transferring and hiding their taxable investments in Tfsa now...
> 
> but given the two choices between inflation indexation and fixed $10K, i prefer to former.


What the heck are you talking about, man? It is for everybody, so Socialist and egalitarian like almost everything in Canada. Everybody has equal chance in regards to this matter.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Jimmy said:


> There doesn't have to be a justification for returning taxpayer $. The budget was balanced in 2015 and they can bring forth any program they like. Would rather have them return taxpayer $ than have Liberals waste it away on their latest social pet projects or give it away to overseas special interests. Are the Liberals giving you any justification why they are running $19B deficits in good times? That is what you should be concerned about.
> 
> The TFSA is gaining in popularity as a substitute for the RRSP esp among younger and older age groups vs a supplement. The avg RRSP contribution is just over $5,000 , meaning ~ 50% put in more so a $10 k limit for the TFSA as an option is not unreasonable either



Interestingly, you didn't mention one reason the deficit has grown (by $1.2 billion per year) is because of the 'middle-class' tax cut:
https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...as-key-income-tax-pledge-passes-through-house 


Re: the higher deficit is because of social pet projects or overseas special interests - what specifically are you referring to?


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

smihaila said:


> What the heck are you talking about, man? It is for everybody, so Socialist and egalitarian like almost everything in Canada. Everybody has equal chance in regards to this matter.


Eh?
Considering the data showing how many Canadians aren't saving right now, it's a big disingenuous to say everyone has an equal chance without considering the differences in opportunity to save.

Clearly those with greater incomes have a greater chance to save the $6,000 / person, or $12,000 per couple.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

BoringInvestor said:


> Interestingly, you didn't mention one reason the deficit has grown (by $1.2 billion per year) is because of the 'middle-class' tax cut:


It's interesting that both initiatives, the middle class tax cut by Liberals, and TFSA increase by Conservatives, were essentially a tax cut given to the same demographic. The Liberal tax cut benefiting people starting at ~45k, and being maximum for people at ~90k. The same could be said for the $5,000 to $10,000 TFSA increase, maybe a bit higher with wages... starting to benefit people who make ~$60k+

Yet Harper's cut was eschewed as just for the rich, and Trudeau's cut was lauded as for "the middle class", i.e. "most people", when it was actually predominantly beneficial to the upper middle class only, just like the TFSA increase.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

peterk said:


> It's interesting that both initiatives, the middle class tax cut by Liberals, and TFSA increase by Conservatives, were essentially a tax cut given to the same demographic. The Liberal tax cut benefiting people starting at ~45k, and being maximum for people at ~90k. The same could be said for the $5,000 to $10,000 TFSA increase, maybe a bit higher with wages... starting to benefit people who make ~$60k+
> 
> Yet Harper's cut was eschewed as just for the rich, and Trudeau's cut was lauded as for "the middle class", i.e. "most people", when it was actually predominantly beneficial to the upper middle class only, just like the TFSA increase.


Indeed there was some overlap, but I'd be hard pressed to agree that the net benefits distributed from a tax cut are equal to an increase in the TFSA contribution limit.

Those with the highest incomes are best able to put aside the full contribution room for TFSAs, so certainly the benefits skew 'richer' than an income tax cut starting at ~$45k.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Regarding age discrimination in TFSA. The US IRA seems to be the comparable to the TFSA, and they apparently allow over 50 yr olds to contribute more $. We need that here in CDN.


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

The UK version is much more generous as well. They have several different types of TFSA equivalent and if you are contributing to the one meant for retirement, the government even kicks in a little matching money !


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

BoringInvestor said:


> Interestingly, you didn't mention one reason the deficit has grown (by $1.2 billion per year) is because of the 'middle-class' tax cut:
> https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...as-key-income-tax-pledge-passes-through-house
> 
> 
> Re: the higher deficit is because of social pet projects or overseas special interests - what specifically are you referring to?


? Please. You must be a Liberal staffer. Take your pick of any of their UN funded programs for reproductive rights, fight against terrorism, women's equality, UN peacekeeping missions, Climate change delegations etc etc For awhile it seemed every other month they were shoveling $500M to some UN cause.

Details of the $600M shoveled to his UN masters for global reproductive rights.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...xual-and-reproductive-health/article34237503/


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Jimmy said:


> ? Please. You must be a Liberal staffer. Take your pick of any of their UN funded programs for reproductive rights, fight against terrorism, women's equality, UN peacekeeping missions, Climate change delegations etc etc For awhile it seemed every other month they were shoveling $500M to some UN cause.
> 
> Details of the $600M shoveled to his UN masters for global reproductive rights.
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...xual-and-reproductive-health/article34237503/


Sounds like a great initiative. 
The link between poverty, education, health, and women's reproductive rights has a large body of supporting evidence.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

BoringInvestor said:


> Sounds like a great initiative.
> The link between poverty, education, health, and women's reproductive rights has a large body of supporting evidence.


Right. $600M we don't have 1st of all. $ we don't have heaped on the debt is a not a great initiative either and they have bigger needs here like fixing their illegal immigration fiasco that will cost ON $200M this year. Either way the initiatives for them in reality is just buying that UN seat if they want to be really honest and transparent


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Mookie said:


> Personally, I think the way TFSA limits were implemented is a form of age discrimination, not some huge tax break for the so called “upper class”.
> 
> Consider Albert, aged 18, Bob, aged 50 and Charlie, aged 80, all of which will live to age 90, and all of which earn median incomes in Canada. Albert, Bob and Charlie are all careful savers, and each one maxes their TFSA every year throughout their lives.
> 
> ...


Charlie benefited from undercontributions to CPP. We'll talk about giving this cohort bonus TFSA room when they make catch-up CPP contributions.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Are you expecting grandpa Charlie return to work and contribute to CPP in order to level out the tax free $ grandson Albert is getting/growing on his TFSA? :sulkiness:


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Jimmy said:


> Right. $600M we don't have 1st of all. $ we don't have heaped on the debt is a not a great initiative either and they have bigger needs here like fixing their illegal immigration fiasco that will cost ON $200M this year. Either way the initiatives for them in reality is just buying that UN seat if they want to be really honest and transparent


What's to gain by spending $600 million to purchase a UN seat?

As a counterpoint, investing and promoting health across the globe is a worthy endeavor, especially one that targets women's reproductive rights for the reasons given above.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Charlie benefited from undercontributions to CPP. We'll talk about giving this cohort bonus TFSA room when they make catch-up CPP contributions.


What do you mean charlie benifited from undercontributions? Flesh this out a bit more.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

BoringInvestor said:


> What's to gain by spending $600 million to purchase a UN seat?
> 
> As a counterpoint, investing and promoting health across the globe is a worthy endeavor, especially one that targets women's reproductive rights for the reasons given above.


You will have to ask the Liberals you seem to keep defending. All they do is pander to the UN. Either way and for the last time we didn't have $600M and if they are going to add to the debt, spend it here at least.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Jimmy said:


> You will have to ask the Liberals you seem to keep defending. All they do is pander to the UN. Either way and for the last time we didn't have $600M and if they are going to add to the debt, spend it here at least.


Eh? You made a very specific claim that the only reason they're spending the money is to get the seat. You can defend what you said.

A few times you've accused me of being partisan, I'm deliberately ignoring it partly because it's untrue, but primarily because it's not helpful to the conversation. 
I'm all for holding governments to account, and praising when what I think the right action is taken.

So on that note - I'm looking to you to expand on your claim that they're just looking to buy a seat.
If it's true - I'm totally against that.


----------



## Mookie (Feb 29, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Charlie benefited from undercontributions to CPP. We'll talk about giving this cohort bonus TFSA room when they make catch-up CPP contributions.


I was focusing specifically on the inequities of the TFSA, but you may have a point regarding boomers getting an advantage with CPP. 

I guess that leaves GenX folks like me in the middle holding the bag. :crushed:

Bottom line: Life isn't always fair.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

CPP started in 1966, the year I started working summers (and paying into CPP). So there are very few seniors let alive, mostly age 80+ who will have gotten more out of CPP than they put in. Granted contributory rates went up in 1998 and will be going up again, but there have been a host of additional benefits (flexibility) along the way too https://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/pensions/cpp-timeline_e.shtml I'd suggest it was mostly the 1998 contributory rate changes that has had some unequal effect but it's not clear to me how much.

Added: On the opposite side, the younger one is, the more TFSAs will be of benefit. Those of us hitting 70 can't do much about that wonderful vehicle.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> What do you mean charlie benifited from undercontributions? Flesh this out a bit more.


CPP was not sustainable prior to reforms implemented in 1996. Hypothetical Charlie benefited from this unsustainability because all his contributions were prior to the reforms. 40% of the current 10% contribution rate is to pay for the benefits Charlie and others didn't fully pay for. So, Charlie should take a holistic view of intergenerational fairness.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

BoringInvestor said:


> Eh? You made a very specific claim that the only reason they're spending the money is to get the seat. You can defend what you said.
> 
> A few times you've accused me of being partisan, I'm deliberately ignoring it partly because it's untrue, but primarily because it's not helpful to the conversation.
> I'm all for holding governments to account, and praising when what I think the right action is taken.
> ...


 You said it was the 'only reason' first of all not me. It was my 'opinion' on what their 'initiatives' were re the UN seat. You can look to educating yourself on their UN seat pandering too, not my job to do your research, but here is some reading to get you started.https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/bonokoski-trudeau-freeland-chasing-seat-at-uns-big-table
https://www.opencanada.org/features/what-will-it-take-canada-get-un-security-council-seat/

Your posts here defend the Liberals spending practices and criticize those of the CPC whether you intend it or not so not sure why you are so surprised and defiant. Either way we'll leave it at that


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Jimmy said:


> You said it was the 'only reason' first of all not me. It was my 'opinion' on what their 'initiatives' were re the UN seat. You can look to educating yourself on their UN seat pandering too, not my job to do your research, but here is some reading to get you started.https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/bonokoski-trudeau-freeland-chasing-seat-at-uns-big-table
> https://www.opencanada.org/features/what-will-it-take-canada-get-un-security-council-seat/
> 
> Your posts here defend the Liberals spending practices and criticize those of the CPC whether you intend it or not so not sure why you are so surprised and defiant. Either way we'll leave it at that


No, you were quite clear: "Either way the initiatives for them in reality is just buying that UN seat".
You didn't use the word 'only', but you were quite clear that's the reason why they're spending the money.

I am aware of jockeying for UN seats, but thanks for sending the articles.

I still don't see justification that they're only doing this to buy the UN seat.
As you can't justify your opinion, I'll give it the weighting it deserves, and dismiss it.


I see you're once again bringing up partisanship, and you're deliberately ignoring what I said. 
I'm unsure if you can only think in partisan ways, or if you can only justify your thoughts by projecting partisan thinking on others, but I'll say it again more bluntly as obviously the point hasn't sunk in - you're wrong.

Certainly I disagree with a lot of CPC policies, but I also disagree with Liberal ones too. I'd happily give praise when I'm in alignment, and speak out when I think the government is in error.


So to sum up - the TFSA going up to 10k is bad policy based upon an examination of the evidence of how it's being used.
If one wants to justify it purely from a Libertarian perspective, it's at least a little justifiable, but that's a rationale in spite of the growing wealth divergence and the erosion of the middle class, which a higher TFSA helps to perpetuate and accelerate.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Can you point me to the evidence that is proving the use is a problem?

I would have expected between the advisors and ability to make TFSA contributions, those with an income $100K+ would have maxed out their TFSA contributions. The stats can numbers I recall said that it was 15% ($100K to $149K), 22% ($150K to $249K) and 33% ($250K+) that did.


It seems silly to under use the TFSA but like the RRSP, there seems to be many who likely have the means to do more than they have.


Cheers


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> The stats can numbers I recall said that it was 15% ($100K to $149K), 22% ($150K to $249K) and 33% ($250K+) that did.
> 
> 
> It seems silly to under use the TFSA but like the RRSP, there seems to be many who likely have the means to do more than they have.


So really it shows that, more TFSA room is a gift to savers and investors, and spenders are wasting the gift they could be using, nearly regardless of income.

When I was 18 and starting university I had $10,000 saved from all my working during highschool. I remember I had it in a 1-yr GIC at ING (Tangerine) @ 4.5%. I could have used more than $5000 in TFSA room, if it existed, at the time.  But I guess I didn't deserve that because most kids my age hadn't worked or had any money...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> CPP started in 1966, the year I started working summers (and paying into CPP). So there are very few seniors let alive, mostly age 80+ who will have gotten more out of CPP than they put in. Granted contributory rates went up in 1998 and will be going up again, but there have been a host of additional benefits (flexibility) along the way too https://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/pensions/cpp-timeline_e.shtml I'd suggest it was mostly the 1998 contributory rate changes that has had some unequal effect but it's not clear to me how much.
> 
> Added: On the opposite side, the younger one is, the more TFSAs will be of benefit. *Those of us hitting 70 can't do much* about that wonderful vehicle.


 ... yes, you can. Like this 69 year old: 

*
69-year-old Dutch man asks to be declared 49, claiming age is as fluid as gender*

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/11/08/69-year-old-dutch-man-asks-to-be-declared-49-claiming-age-is-as-fluid-as-gender.html


Imagine if he's successful with his case, say in Canada, 30 more years of TFSA contributions ... not only his sons will be rich, but his grandsons will be super-ultra-rich! (Provided he died and bequeathed his wealth to his sons, of course).


----------



## tdiddy (Jan 7, 2015)

lots of talk of rich using TFSA, but even if its never capped, realistically contribution space is limited to around 400K in today's dollars (ie 5600 every year 18 to 88)

Whereas with the PR exemption, a wealthy individual could go out a buy a 10mil house which acquires cap gains tax free for the rest of their life and pass that on to their family. 

If there were plans to cap TFSA in 10 years I'd say they should do the same on PR exemption.


----------



## tdiddy (Jan 7, 2015)

BoringInvestor said:


> So to sum up - the TFSA going up to 10k is bad policy based upon an examination of the evidence of how it's being used.
> If one wants to justify it purely from a Libertarian perspective, it's at least a little justifiable, but that's a rationale in spite of the growing wealth divergence and the erosion of the middle class, which a higher TFSA helps to perpetuate and accelerate.


Do you think the TFSA actually has a sizable effect on growing wealth divergence? Perhaps it is also giving upper middle class a tax efficient tool to save more money and compete with more costly, complex methods available to ultra rich (the ones driving income inequality to begin with)?

Canada's after tax gini coefficient hasn't really changed as much as the left would lead us to believe from what i've read. Which goes to show how aggressive our tax structure is considering the role of assortative mating and rising women's employment in naturally driving up gini.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

It's a tax efficient tool whether you have $100 to invest or $1000 to invest or $5,500 to invest. 

I do appreciate the more money you have to invest, the more wealth you can create - but that's not new.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

BoringInvestor said:


> No, you were quite clear: "Either way the initiatives for them in reality is just buying that UN seat".
> You didn't use the word 'only', but you were quite clear that's the reason why they're spending the money.
> 
> I am aware of jockeying for UN seats, but thanks for sending the articles.
> ...


Sorry still wrong and being obtuse now. You don't seem to know what an opinion really is. IMO those were their 'initiatives ( read hidden agenda) not their stated reasons and you can play petty semantics all you like. Maybe you need to look up those words too. Didn't say it was the 'only' reason again and can't type this any slower whether you are unwilling or unable to grasp it or not.

Obviously you don't follow this issue too closely either. Gave you two articles to read to educate yourself on their UN seat ambitions . Hoping you could connect the dots to all the UN programs and peacekeeping spending of theirs in pursuit of that effort but it seems that was asking too much or you wish to remain ignorant so I'll give your opinion and lack of comprehension of the issue the weighting they deserve too.

You criticized the TFSA expansion which was a CPC policy.


> Thank goodness it wasn't kept at $10k.
> 
> It was entirely unjustified in its premise.
> I much prefer public policy and debate be based on data and facts.
> ...


" I much prefer public policy and debate be based on data and facts. ' is an opinion and a biased one at that as you don't know what they based it on unless you are in cabinet. You then tried to justify the Liberals UN spending and don't seem to care it is w $ we don't have or the fact they are running $19B deficits. Sorry but all this reeks of bias and you are the one perpetuating endlessly the partisan issue too btw. Maybe it is a self conscious thing but for the last time we are done here


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... yes, you can. Like this 69 year old:
> 
> *
> 69-year-old Dutch man asks to be declared 49, claiming age is as fluid as gender*
> ...


I like the idea, but since he is a Trump supporter I doubt the courts will accommodate the idea of fluid aging.


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

The TFSA has been demonstrated to be a better tool for the poor for saving and retirement than RRSPS.

That doesn't fit into the class warfare agenda reasons for reducing them of course.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Jimmy said:


> Sorry still wrong and being obtuse now. You don't seem to know what an opinion really is. IMO those were their 'initiatives ( read hidden agenda) not their stated reasons and you can play petty semantics all you like. Maybe you need to look up those words too. Didn't say it was the 'only' reason again and can't type this any slower whether you are unwilling or unable to grasp it or not.
> 
> Obviously you don't follow this issue too closely either. Gave you two articles to read to educate yourself on their UN seat ambitions . Hoping you could connect the dots to all the UN programs and peacekeeping spending of theirs in pursuit of that effort but it seems that was asking too much or you wish to remain ignorant so I'll give your opinion and lack of comprehension of the issue the weighting they deserve too.
> 
> ...



If you can't backup your opinion it's a bad opinion.
Own up to that, or change your opinion.


Again you go to partisanship. You just can't let go of it.
So, once again, as plainly as it can be stated: you're wrong.
Clearly you don't care.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Koogie said:


> The TFSA has been demonstrated to be a better tool for the poor for saving and retirement than RRSPS.
> 
> That doesn't fit into the class warfare agenda reasons for reducing them of course.


It's the difference between a) is it a better tool, and b) it is being used.

Arguably a) is true.
For b) the answer is no. It's not being used up to the 5.5k figure today by those with lower incomes, so increasing it is in effect a tax cut for those with higher incomes/more wealth.

You can argue that's a good and desirable thing (I'd disagree), but the argument isn't there to say raising it to 10k is a proportional benefit across all income levels.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Koogie said:


> The TFSA has been demonstrated to be a better tool for the poor for saving and retirement than RRSPS.


Yeah, you didn't provide any citations, so I don't know if that's true or not. I sure wish I had the TFSA during my working career, as I would be much better off.

Ofttimes, the middle class, and especially the upper middle class will dutifully contribute to their RRSP throughout their career and then find in retirement the combination of their work pension + RRIF + CPP +OAS results in an income that is significantly higher than the income they enjoyed during their RRSP contribution years. This situation results in the RRSP not being ideal. 

The optimum being, a contribution tax rate higher than the withdrawal tax rate. It often doesn't work out that way, and with the addition of a 15% penalty assigned to OAS payments over the clawback threshold, combined with marginal tax rates increasing as income risies, these individuals aren't really taking advantage of the RRSP as originally designed.

I would think that the TFSA would be a great tool for the middle class.

ltr


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

BoringInvestor said:


> If you can't backup your opinion it's a bad opinion.
> Own up to that, or change your opinion.
> 
> 
> ...


 A bad opinion to you is one you either don't understand or doesn't suit your biases. Maybe you will pay attention the next time the Libs shovel $ to the UN and a light will go off. Who mentions partisanship in every post here? lol Not me. I also keep saying we'll leave it and you keep responding Ciao


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

BoringInvestor said:


> If you can't backup your opinion it's a bad opinion.
> Own up to that, or change your opinion.
> 
> 
> ...


 A bad opinion to you is one you either don't understand or doesn't suit your biases. Maybe you will pay attention the next time the Libs shovel $ to the UN and a light will go off. Who mentions partisanship in every post here? lol Not me. I also keep saying we'll leave it and you keep responding Ciao


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

BoringInvestor said:


> It's the difference between a) is it a better tool, and b) it is being used.
> 
> Arguably a) is true.
> For b) the answer is no. *It's not being used up to the 5.5k figure today by those with lower incomes*, so increasing it is in effect a tax cut for those with higher incomes/more wealth.


I haven't seen enough detail to the info I have been able to find to be sure of this.

Interestingly, 2015 was the year of the $10K TFSA contribution limit where for that year, Stats Can reports all income ranges as having TFSA holders who maxed out their contribution room.
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/cra-arc/migration/cra-arc/gncy/stts/tfsa-celi/2015/tbl01c-eng.pdf


With the high end of those reported as maxing out their contributions as 33% - it seems high income types that have a TFSA are ignoring the tax cut.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Koogie said:


> The TFSA has been demonstrated to be a better tool for the poor for saving and retirement than RRSPS.
> 
> That doesn't fit into the class warfare agenda reasons for reducing them of course.


The poor have more than enough TFSA contribution room. The only people who can benefit from increasing the limit are those who have maxed out their TFSAs, which is nigh on zero for low income people.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

The 2015 increase didn't seem to help those reporting on their tax return $250K+ of income as it seems that just under 29% maxed out their TFSA contributions.

Perhaps more puzzling, just over 13% of this group don't seem to have opened a TFSA at all.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

If you think about it, available TFSA space means little to folks with annual income >$250k, especially those who are well on their life journey and have millions of dollars in assets already. It should/would make a difference for the younger high income generation. 

My own TFSA in total is worth about the same as an average single equity holding in my portfolio. It should be something meaningful in 5-10 additional years to me, but some HNW folks can be forgiven for not paying attention. I had nothing better to do after retirement so utilizing full contribution room each and every year was worth my time.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Well here's one to chew on:

I'm executor of an estate that will see sufficient funds going to a low income senior to be able to open and maximize a TFSA they don't currently have.
I'll assist them in opening a $63,000 (or $63,500?) TFSA which will generate just over $300/month into their chequing account, tax free. They currently have an income of $1900/month, before taxes, so this will be a significant amount for them. The principal will remain approximately intact, and will eventually to go to a beneficiary who will similarly be entering retirement with little income. 

Those critical of TFSA's are free to have an opinion re/ this scenario, but frankly I don't care.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

A perfect example of the value of a TFSA to low income individual especially if that senior also qualifies for GIS. It has value for anyone, but decreasingly so the higher the income one gets (and assets ones accumulates).


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> If you think about it, available TFSA space means little to folks with annual income >$250k, especially those who are well on their life journey and have millions of dollars in assets already ... I had nothing better to do after retirement so utilizing full contribution room each and every year was worth my time.


I'd have thought with that with that many assets, they'd have people to make sure the TFSA was fully funded/managed ... but that may be my bias. :biggrin: 


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> I'd have thought with that with that many assets, they'd have people to make sure the TFSA was fully funded/managed ... but that may be my bias. :biggrin:


It's our DIY bias. TFSAs are just noise to wealthy folk. Not worth the time to put petty cash into it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> A perfect example of the value of a TFSA to low income individual especially if that senior also qualifies for GIS. It has value for anyone, but decreasingly so the higher the income one gets (and assets ones accumulates).


In terms of $ per capita, the value increases with income. Governments have limited resources. Giving a tax break that will see 99% of the benefit go to high income individuals because there is a 1% fringe case low income person would benefits is bad policy. If you want to use those resources to help low income people, there are better ways. If you want to reduce taxes on the wealthy, there are better ways.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Andrewf, 
You seem to think the TFSA provides a massive, tax-avoidance benefit to the wealthy. It does not. It is lost loose change to the gov't coffers. 

Meanwhile, it provides incentive to millions of Canadians at all income levels to save and be a bit more responsible for their own welfare rather than depending on more gov't largesse.

If you are really concerned (I know that on principle you must not have a TFSA), you should first focus on the gov't's capacity to piss away the tax dollars they do receive. Raking in more taxes is a secondary issue. 

Finally, 'the wealthy' who I know will have paid large, in fact huge, amounts of tax and helped many others over the course of their careers. Attacking perceived tax unfairness on isolated issues like the TFSA is myopic at best. Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

tdiddy said:


> Do you think the TFSA actually has a sizable effect on growing wealth divergence? Perhaps it is also giving upper middle class a tax efficient tool to save more money and compete with more costly, complex methods available to ultra rich (the ones driving income inequality to begin with)?
> 
> Canada's after tax gini coefficient hasn't really changed as much as the left would lead us to believe from what i've read. Which goes to show how aggressive our tax structure is considering the role of assortative mating and rising women's employment in naturally driving up gini.


Sizable? I'm not sure. I haven't seen it quantified in that way.

I view it more as it's certainly not helping, given the benefits skew towards those with more disposable income.


I don't follow what you're saying re: taxing coefficient. 
Can you explain?


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Jimmy said:


> A bad opinion to you is one you either don't understand or doesn't suit your biases. Maybe you will pay attention the next time the Libs shovel $ to the UN and a light will go off. Who mentions partisanship in every post here? lol Not me. I also keep saying we'll leave it and you keep responding Ciao


Once again you go to a partisan attack.

Once again you're wrong.

How can I best describe this to you?
An interpretive dance perhaps?


----------



## tdiddy (Jan 7, 2015)

BoringInvestor said:


> Sizable? I'm not sure. I haven't seen it quantified in that way.
> 
> I view it more as it's certainly not helping, given the benefits skew towards those with more disposable income.
> 
> ...


What I'm saying is that after tax the income inequality in Canada is not dramatically rising, it is rising a lot more before tax but after all the financial transfers are said and done it has not gone up that much. And that is before Trudeau's recent tax changes make us one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. 

My personal opinion is that TFSA does not have a large effect on inequality, primarily because it is aimed mostly at middle class Canadians and does not markedly affect the overall finance of wealth individuals (hence why many do not even bother with it). As i said something like the PR exemption will have a more notable effect on wealth disparity. 

Nor do I think all policy should be primarily judged based on its effect on income inequality. Some amount of income inequality is natural in society. Clearly TFSA does not help those in poverty, but there are loads of other programs to discuss for them. What the TFSA should do is encourage middle income Canadians across the spectrum from barely middle income to close to rich to save more. Considering how much debt we tend to take on I don't see how this is a bad thing. 

http://irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Intro-graph-1.png


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Pluto said:


> What do you mean charlie benifited from undercontributions? Flesh this out a bit more.


The CPP was chronically underfunded (under contributed to) for many years until the late 90's when Paul Martin got it corrected. Charlie therefore benefited from under contributing. In addition "Charlie" who was 65 in 2003 got maximum and only had to work 31.45 years versus someone retiring today has to work 39 years. (In both cases assuming max yearly contributions were made)


Another example, for someone who turned 65 in 1980 (1980-1966- 15% dropout) they only had to have 12 years of max contributions to get max CPP plus they were under contributing as well.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Andrewf,
> You seem to think the TFSA provides a massive, tax-avoidance benefit to the wealthy. It does not. It is lost loose change to the gov't coffers.
> 
> Meanwhile, it provides incentive to millions of Canadians at all income levels to save and be a bit more responsible for their own welfare rather than depending on more gov't largesse.
> ...


$6k per year provides an incentive to low income people. The delta of raising it to $10k provides an infinitesimal incentive for low income people to save, as demonstrably the vast majority do not use all of the $6k they have.

I do have a maxed out TFSA. Maybe you struggle to understand this, but I am able to discern the difference between what is best for me personally (how about a 100% tax credit for people named Andrew? It would cost almost nothing as long as you banned name changes) and what is best for society. If you review my criticism, I am not saying that government should not grant tax breaks, I am saying that some tax breaks are better than others. Raising TFSA room from $6k to $10k is not the best way of delivering a tax break to any demo you care to benefit. The poor won't use it except in highly unusual circumstances (better to up HST rebates, working income tax credit, etc.) and the rich would benefit more from reductions in marginal rate or increases in the thresholds for tax brackets. 

If you think the rich don't benefit from TFSA, surely you wouldn't complain about a measure that makes those with higher net worth/income ineligible for TFSAs. As it stands, higher income people face a higher marginal tax rate and have more financial assets. The value of a $1 of shielded income is worth about 2x tax avoided for a person in the highest bracket vs the lowest. Really low income people under the personal exemption get no benefit.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> You seem to think the TFSA provides a massive, tax-avoidance benefit to the wealthy. It does not. It is lost loose change to the gov't coffers.
> 
> Meanwhile, it provides incentive to millions of Canadians at all income levels to save and be a bit more responsible for their own welfare rather than depending on more gov't largesse.


And, perhaps an even bigger benefit for the low to middle income - it let's you avoid using unregistered accounts and/or RRSPs and keeps your income tax filing dead simple. For most people, as soon as you get into "savings" of any kind, the complicated taxes are close behind, and there goes another $150/yr to some accountant/service to spend 6 minutes filling in a few boxes on your behalf.

The TFSA lets some ~majority the population not ever have to worry about anything other than their T4, and gives them a chance to possibly file their taxes on their own. Instead of getting sucked into the banking industrial complex of mutual fund advisors, accountants, tax preparers and salespeople...

I went first 3 years of my career with very high income before maxing my TFSA and RRSP. Now the past 2 years I've had to actually do my investment taxes. They suck. I can see why most would not be inclined and just pay someone.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Retiredguy said:


> The CPP was chronically underfunded (under contributed to) for many years until the late 90's when Paul Martin got it corrected. Charlie therefore benefited from under contributing. In addition "Charlie" who was 65 in 2003 got maximum and only had to work 31.45 years versus someone retiring today has to work 39 years. (In both cases assuming max yearly contributions were made)
> 
> 
> Another example, for someone who turned 65 in 1980 (1980-1966- 15% dropout) they only had to have 12 years of max contributions to get max CPP plus they were under contributing as well.


This is the kind of thing that happens when new programs are introduced. I don't harbour discontent of having contributed to CPP for ~40 years since 1966 and not being the 'lucky' one that retired in 1980. These people are now dead. The bigger issue that one could gripe about is the under-contributions until Martin fixed it in 1998 to be fully funded on a forward basis, rather than pay-as-you-go. It was the right thing to do. Could have been worse had change in contributions not been made until 2010 or later. Life isn't perfect.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

No, life isn't perfect. Just as with TFSA starting in 2009 leading to people from later cohorts receiving more lifetime contribution room. I mentioned CPP to demonstrate that you win some and lose some. I shed no tears for 85 year old Charlie not getting as much lifetime TFSA room as someone who was 18 years old in 2009 (now 27), because he is receiving a much better deal from CPP than the 27 year old. On balance, Charlie has been treated more than fairly.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Andrewf, You keep mentioning_ Raising TFSA room from $6k to $10k_. 
I wasn't suggesting that and didn't realize that was the subject being discussed.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> No, life isn't perfect. Just as with TFSA starting in 2009 leading to people from later cohorts receiving more lifetime contribution room. I mentioned CPP to demonstrate that you win some and lose some. I shed no tears for 85 year old Charlie not getting as much lifetime TFSA room as someone who was 18 years old in 2009 (now 27), because he is receiving a much better deal from CPP than the 27 year old. On balance, Charlie has been treated more than fairly.


Agreed. I've never seen the point of old geezers whining about an inability to accumulate TFSA contribution room.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> This is the kind of thing that happens when new programs are introduced. I don't harbour discontent of having contributed to CPP for ~40 years since 1966 and not being the 'lucky' one that retired in 1980. These people are now dead. The bigger issue that one could gripe about is the under-contributions until Martin fixed it in 1998 to be fully funded on a forward basis, rather than pay-as-you-go. It was the right thing to do. Could have been worse had change in contributions not been made until 2010 or later. Life isn't perfect.



Agreed. My now dead parents and other relatives benefited and as I contributed starting in 1971 I will too, but also feel good that even those who speak poorly of pension plans generally agree that the CPP is solid, thanks to Martin.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

BoringInvestor said:


> Once again you go to a partisan attack.
> 
> Once again you're wrong.
> 
> ...


Your response was uncivil in case you forgot so you get the same in kind. An opinion based on evidence is not a partisan attack either to clear thinkers. You seem to want to argue just for that sake alone. I don't it is a waste of time. Go take dance lessons if it helps you develop your reasoning and debating skills too and good luck


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

SixesAndSevens said:


> Not $10K.
> total TFSA room is $57,500 as of 2018.
> another $6K for 2019 puts the total at $63,500.
> ...and that's per spouse.
> ...


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Jimmy said:


> Your response was uncivil in case you forgot so you get the same in kind. An opinion based on evidence is not a partisan attack either to clear thinkers. You seem to want to argue just for that sake alone where many just see it as a waste of time. Go take dance lessons if it helps you develop your reasoning and debating skills too and good luck


Hey! No partisan attack this time!

You learned!

Congrats!!!!!

I'm so proud of you.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Retiredguy said:


> $126K is sheltered from nothing. ITS AFTER TAX MONEY!


hehe, good one RG, and in a perfect world, after we've been taxed on an income, anything beyond that would be tax free. 

Unfortunately, it ain't so. Buy something, you're taxed again. Invest in something, you're taxed again. It's a bugger for sure.

ltr


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

BoringInvestor said:


> Hey! No partisan attack this time!
> 
> You learned!
> 
> ...


Sure it means much more to you than me but happy to make a delusional, facts challenged , vain and condescending debater proud. lol


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Jimmy said:


> Sure it means much more to you than me but happy to make a delusional, facts challenged , vain and condescending debater proud. lol


That's two comments now without resorting to a meaningless partisan attack! A new record!
I think you've mastered this.

For your next challenge, take a look at this thread, and make a list of any insults you've used, and any you've seen that I've used.

Share your results when you're done, and we'll go from there.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

like_to_retire said:


> hehe, good one RG, and in a perfect world, after we've been taxed on an income, anything beyond that would be tax free.
> 
> Unfortunately, it ain't so. Buy something, you're taxed again. Invest in something, you're taxed again. It's a bugger for sure.
> 
> ltr



Hmmm …. of course ltr, we all know that, and I think most here will comprehend that my comment was in the context of a TFSA account. Oh yeah that's what the thread is about!


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

BoringInvestor said:


> That's two comments now without resorting to a meaningless partisan attack! A new record!
> I think you've mastered this.
> 
> For your next challenge, take a look at this thread, and make a list of any insults you've used, and any you've seen that I've used.
> ...


Maybe you can go back and review your debating deficiencies and the times you were arrogant and rude and focus on that first. And the dance lessons too.

Failing that. Old Jedi mind trick.

Jgm:" I will stop posting and belaboring on and as it just makes my arguments look weaker and weaker."
BoringInvestor: " I will stop belaboring posting on and as it just makes my arguments look weaker and weaker."


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Younger gen shouldn't feel slighted that now dead geezers got a few more bucks outta CPP than put in...most of them (inc my father) went to Europe & got their asses shot off ensuring this country and others are still around...something us boomers and the rest never had to do. Life's not fair.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eder said:


> Younger gen shouldn't feel slighted that now dead geezers got a few more bucks outta CPP than put in...most of them (inc my father) went to Europe & got their asses shot off ensuring this country and others are still around...something us boomers and the rest never had to do. *Life's not fair.*


 ... exactly. 

If one feels slighted of being short-changed, he/she should blame the statisticians, bean-counters and the policy makers who came up with these schemes (in this case CPP).


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

How about blaming their ultimate bosses, the voters?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Yes, you can do that. What goes around comes around...LOL!


----------



## P_I (Dec 2, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> It says 'at the current rate of inflation, it will be $6000'. CRA has not confirmed that yet.


It has now been confirmed. According to Indexation adjustment for personal income tax and benefit amounts - Canada.ca the TFSA limit for 2019 is $6000.


----------

