# now with TFSAs, are RRSPs really needed?



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

An offline friend and I were discussing retirement and we were wondering if the TFSA could ultimately replace the RRSP for many people. In my own case for instance, I rarely need the tax "refund" offered by am RRSP contribution, so I'm fine with putting my after-tax dollars in my TFSA every year. I'm lucky that I've been able to deposit the full $5K every year but if we project 10-15 years into the future, there will be a lot of people with a lot of money in their TFSAs.

Consider someone with a TFSA that has grown to $100K in 20 years. Then consider the same amount in an RRSP. Assume some of the amount is investment growth. The guy who withdraws from the TFSA can simply do it whenever he wants, certainly wouldn't need a RRIF and would get back every penny that's in that account. The guy with the RRSP though has a lot of reckoning to do in the future as he is taxed on those RRIF payments.

I would sooner pay the tax at source (off my paycheque) and then enjoy the after-tax money for the rest of my life. The RRSP is deferred tax that I am vulnerable to until as late as age 71.


----------



## atrp2biz (Sep 22, 2010)

Maybe if the annual contribution limit was increased to $15,000-$20,000 per year. I don't think that is going to happen any time soon though.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

You're right. If anything, I predict that in the future the gov't will figure out a way to reduce the perks of the TFSA once people start figuring out all the loopholes. They'll eliminate or reduce these perks and blame abusers.

But for right now, in 10 years we'll all have room of $50K. In 20 years, $100K. That is a tremendous amount of tax free eligibility.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Royal you make some very good points and I question my self all the time regarding this now. 

It's so hard to see far in the future how exactly everything will pan out. From what I've read, if you are in a lower tax rate, go for TFSA. If you are in a high tax rate, do RRSP. The middle tax rate could pan out that both are almost even. 

Then, upon retirement, if you think your income will be lower, go with RRSP. If not, do TFSA. To figure out the answer of that question, requires further planning and estimation. 

A positive note is that, regardless your choice of account, at least you ARE saving for retirement. Better to have something than nothing; better to have a tax payment than nothing. 

I strongly agree and like how you have more choice with the TFSA, as you can do anything you want and when you want it.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Choice is good. I also prefer the simplicity of the TFSA, but the 5000 tax shelter offered by the TFSA is not nearly enough for me. I really should start spending more on consumption. 

If they offer TFSA at 18% of your income, that'd be great.

I don't really like people perceiving the RRSP "refund" as a perk. It's just the by-product of the RRSP being a before-tax contribution. The price you pay for this "perk" is that you'll have to pay that tax later. I believe that a lot of people are drawn in by the allure of the "refund" without understanding the full tax implication down the road.


----------



## rstl2011 (Feb 6, 2011)

This paper goes over the issue of RRSP vs TFSA really well.

www.jamiegolombek.com/media/blinded_by_the_refund_2011.pdf


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Absolutely needed.

Our family savings rate is above 30%, and we are fortunate to have incomes large enough that $10k per year ain't gonna cut it.



the-royal-mail said:


> But for right now, in 10 years we'll all have room of $50K. In 20 years, $100K. That is a tremendous amount of tax free eligibility.


While this $ amount 'may' seem high, it is pretty low. Hard pressed to imagine how I could live off $100-$300k (assuming reasonable growth) for 30 years of my life.


----------



## DavidJD (Sep 27, 2009)

I think that the most significant part of the TFSA is that it starts at 18 - which is 20 years late for me to take full advantage of. For those who turned 18 in 2009 - they will very likely have much less need for the RRSP vehicle.

My advice to 18 yr olds would be to squirrel away every cent into their TFSA in order to maximize every contribution opportunity, before ANYTHING else.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

From a social policy point if view, it is also too easy to withdraw money from a TFSA - in fact it was originally set up with short-term savings in mind, not long-term investment. RRSPs are to encourage people to save for retirement - the tax penalties and loss-of-contribution-room penalties for early withdrawal are effective disincentives for collapsing plans early.

Government is going to have to change the rules for TFSAs, because they are too good a deal for people with plenty of disposable income. They will have to either cap contributions, or introduce loss-of-contribution-room-for-withdrawals like RRSPs, or both.


----------



## DavidJD (Sep 27, 2009)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Government is going to have to change the rules for TFSAs, because they are too good a deal for people with plenty of disposable income. They will have to either cap contributions, or introduce loss-of-contribution-room-for-withdrawals like RRSPs, or both.


I have thought about this a lot and the easiest thing and the most simple, and some would argue most fair, change is to not allow the contribution room to increase based on a withdrawal.

If I withdraw $40,000 the next year I can only put back $5,000 (or $5,500 if the limit increases) and not the $45K as is the case now.

Mark my words...


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

DavidJD said:


> I have thought about this a lot and the easiest thing and the most simple, and some would argue most fair, change is to not allow the contribution room to increase based on a withdrawal.
> 
> If I withdraw $40,000 the next year I can only put back $5,000 (or $5,500 if the limit increases) and not the $45K as is the case now.
> 
> Mark my words...


That won't solve the problem. If you just leave the money in it will eventually will build up to a very large non-taxable investment account.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Interesting comments all. I'm just thinking though, there is no real "problem" here IMO. If these TFSAs balloon in the future, you might say that is a problem, but it sorts of depends on your POV doesn't it? 

Let's remember the two main ideas behind the TFSA: to encourage CDNs to save more (check) and as a tax cut (check). It will accomplish this beautifully for anyone smart enough to make use of it. Those who spend beyond their means and live in half-million dollar mortgages with no savings, will continue not to save. But that isn't the gov'ts fault, as they have done their part to encourage people to save.

I know what you mean though. In the future, when these accounts really balloon (some cracker jacks around here apparently have $70K TFSAs) then the gov't will start to become envious of that money. There could be a significant political price to pay for any politician who tinkers with this, esp after people have really learned this type of account inside and out.

I'm very happy with Stephen Harper's pledge to cut taxes and keep more money in the pockets of the middle class. The TFSA does this beautifully. It's one of the most interesting and intriguing financial topics of our time, IMO.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> I'm very happy with Stephen Harper's pledge to cut taxes and keep more money in the pockets of the middle class. The TFSA does this beautifully. It's one of the most interesting and intriguing financial topics of our time, IMO.


Agreed, the current federal govt. has done a lot of things to encourage savings, increasing people's disposable incomes and easing retirements.
TFSA, 2% GST cut, RIF income splitting, UCC, are the ones that come immediately into mind.
And all this at a time of unprecedented economic troubles around the world.

The best part about these initiatives are that they are simple to understand, and have a direct impact on your disposable income and taxes.
Unlike some of the other convoluted, veiled and complicated schemes we have seen that increase your taxes today, with some vague and wishy-washy promises of benefiting you at some indeterminate point in the future.

The hope that TFSA rules do not change in our lifetimes, but they probably will.
Given the resentment certain groups of people feel against the current government's policies, it is possible that this fragile coalition govt. will be voted out next term (or before).
It will be replaced by the "tax-and-spend" types of the past.
The first thing that will happen will be GST being raised back up by 2%.
Next on the chopping block will be TFSAs.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Just imagine if the feds incorporated TFSA income into GIS eligibility. The RRSP-vs-TFSA rules for low income earners would do a major 180.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Given the resentment certain groups of people feel against the current government's policies, it is possible that this fragile coalition govt. will be voted out next term (or before).
> It will be replaced by the "tax-and-spend" types of the past.
> The first thing that will happen will be GST being raised back up by 2%.
> Next on the chopping block will be TFSAs.


A look at the conservative government's deficit suggests that they fall into the "tax cut and spend" class of politicians. That's worse. 

TFSAs are excellent but they primarily benefit those with the extra $5,000/yr. They aren't doing much for young families. Nonethless, I'd be very surprised if the Liberals went after TFSAs. Have they ever expressed opposition to them? 

The GST tax cut might go away. I prefer consumption taxes to income taxes so I'd favor that. We'd be indirectly taxed on our TFSAs when we withdrew and spent the money.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Think about this for a moment. If the TFSA were eliminated, the treasury would take a MAJOR hit. All those RRSP rebates that the govt is thankfully avoiding, will reappear. Remember, when you opt for the TFSA instead of the RRSP, the feds don't have to mail you that yummy RRSP rebate. No one seems to get this.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

We don't need any more left-wing social policy in this country. That's what Harold meant, I think. This country has swung way too far to the left and a correction is needed. Too many lobbyists and "activists" out to rape the public purse for their own selfish gain. This costs too much money! We can't afford this any longer! The middle working class needs a break. Enough already.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

steve41 said:


> Think about this for a moment. If the TFSA were eliminated, the treasury would take a MAJOR hit. All those RRSP rebates that the govt is thankfully avoiding, will reappear. Remember, when you opt for the TFSA instead of the RRSP, the feds don't have to mail you that yummy RRSP rebate. No one seems to get this.



I get it steve. The issue is bigger than that though, and this is what people don't seem to get. If I contribute $20K and get a tax "refund" on that today and my RRSP grows to $50K, when I withdraw it (even if my annual income is lower) I am ultimately taxed on $50K, not on $20K which is what happens when I put the money in the TFSA.

I think the TFSA is a better deal.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The TFSA a good deal, without a doubt.
Although, steve41's point about GIS eligibility is valid - TFSA withdrawals should count against GIS.
It is not fair not to.
OAS is a different matter.

Going back to the political thing, yes, my point was that we've had too much of a "left" leaning ideology and policies.
The current govt' had to give in to political and social pressure when they did the auto sector bailouts.
They would have preferred not to.
We need more policies like the GST cut, the UCC, the TFSA etc.
Someone said upthread that they haven't done anything for young families - the UCC was precisely that.

I agree that we need consumption taxes rather than income taxes.
I'd be supportive of a move that explicitly increases consumption taxes and explicitly reduces income taxes.
Not the sneaky way the HST was implemented.
We need policies that support the working middle classes.
I find that policies and cuts either cater to the ultra rich or the unemployed poor.
We need policies that appreciate and promote the hard-working middle classes (employed or in self-business), which I assume most of us here fall into.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> I get it steve. The issue is bigger than that though, and this is what people don't seem to get. If I contribute $20K and get a tax "refund" on that today and my RRSP grows to $50K, when I withdraw it (even if my annual income is lower) I am ultimately taxed on $50K, not on $20K which is what happens when I put the money in the TFSA.
> 
> I think the TFSA is a better deal.


 What I am saying is.... the govt thinks only short term. By the time they recoup those taxes when you hit 72 and are forced to draw down that RRIF.... decades will have elapsed. Our political system is based on immediate short term results. The feds will be able to attain a balanced budget a lot easier with everyone opting for the TFSA. In the near term.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

steve41 said:


> What I am saying is.... the govt thinks only short term. By the time they recoup those taxes when you hit 72 and are forced to draw down that RRIF.... decades will have elapsed. Our political system is based on immediate short term results. The feds will be able to attain a balanced budget a lot easier with everyone opting for the TFSA. In the near term.


Very interesting. I never thought of that. Yes, the gov't has "saved" lots of money by me not using my RRSP for quite some time. Of course, in the future they won't be getting anything from me. And they better not tax me on TFSA as 'income' during retirement as was suggested above. That's my money, earned and taxed at source. I deserve the benefits of this. If young families or other low income earners did not do this, I don't see why I should suffer in any way. I love my TFSA.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

slacker said:


> I don't really like people perceiving the RRSP "refund" as a perk. It's just the by-product of the RRSP being a before-tax contribution. The price you pay for this "perk" is that you'll have to pay that tax later. I believe that a lot of people are drawn in by the allure of the "refund" without understanding the full tax implication down the road.


And I think it's been marketed that way to sell people investments. 

"Open or contribute to your RRSP, you'll get a big tax refund"

That sounds advantageous to the customer. (but we know there's more to story)


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Government is going to have to change the rules for TFSAs, because they are too good a deal for people with plenty of disposable income. They will have to either cap contributions, or introduce loss-of-contribution-room-for-withdrawals like RRSPs, or both.


And what ever politician touches that risks a huge fallout/outcry from the public. Nobody's going to like that. 

Politician, good luck with your popularity.


----------



## Bullseye (Apr 5, 2009)

You can estimate which one will work out better for you. Use the starting point that RRSP's and TFSA's will give you the same result assuming same tax rate in and out. Then factor in if you will actually be in a lower EFFECTIVE tax rate in withdrawl, working in any loss of tax credits. Then try to guess if you will live long or die fairly young, as dying with a large RRSP balance and no spouse to pass it to makes RRSP's work very badly for you. Not that you'll care then! 

If you're young, some of these assumptions will not be easy to figure out. For that reason, unless you're in the top tax bracket, you should start with TFSA's till maxed, then do RRSP's. Even better, do mortgage payoff before either of these. IMO.

Wife and I are 35, and both have pensions with 10+ years of service. We contribute to those, then use any extra funds to pay down mortgage, which will be cleared in early 40's. We do have a decent sized RRSP balance, from back in the days when I thought RRSP's were better than mortgage paydown, so we'll burn through that in early retirement, before any age related credits/goodies can be clawed back.


----------



## GeniusBoy27 (Jun 11, 2010)

To me, the RRSPs are a far better investment, because of my marginal tax rate being 40+%. It depends, I guess where you expect to be when you retire, and what % you would want to take out, and if that changes your tax rate. 

Having said that, when you crunch the numbers between the RRSP and TFSA (and including the refund), the differences are negligible (<5%). But far better is to use both! To me, the RRSP is a far better savings vehicle (due to its forced restrictions), but the TFSA has far more flexibility to use either as a short-term or aggressive long-term savings/investment fund.

No one's going to touch the TFSA. Economists agree that it's a good creative vehicle (and kudos for the Conservatives for bringing it in.)


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

GeniusBoy27 said:


> ...
> 
> No one's going to touch the TFSA. Economists agree that it's a good creative vehicle (and kudos for the Conservatives for bringing it in.)


Until the suffering masses discover that the well-to-do all have million-dollar TFSA's generating tax-free income. Then all hell is going to break loose.


----------



## GeniusBoy27 (Jun 11, 2010)

OGG:

... and the political fall out, out of cancelling the TFSA's? Over a lifetime, we're talking $250K. So you need pretty good returns to get to a million, which may be okay if you start at age 18. But if you're saving that much, maybe you deserve such a return if you can plan that far in advance ...


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Jungle said:


> And I think it's been marketed that way to sell people investments.
> 
> "Open or contribute to your RRSP, you'll get a big tax refund"
> 
> That sounds advantageous to the customer. (but we know there's more to story)


 The 'story' is that, when you analyze the RRSP strategy.... contribute to your rrsp when working, live off it (as a constant income stream similar to a pension) in retirement, you will determine that the RRSP used in that manner is TAX NEUTRAL! ('tax neutral' means exactly what it sounds like)


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm sure you can clobber what I'm about to say with more precise math and calcs, but I don't see how RRSPs are tax neutral. Especially when the investments will cause the amounts transferred to RRIF to be quite inflated over the original amount. Say I invested $50K over my working life, and this doubled to $100K. I would be taxed on that $100K. Had I of put that $50K in TFSAs I would have been taxed on $50K. IMHO it is better to pay tax on half rather than double.


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

Well, there is the time value of money. The NPV of the tax on $50K when you are in your 20s and a starving artist may be greater than that of the tax on $100K 50 years later.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Perhaps, but I'm not a starving artist. I and many people can happily live without the tax "refund" if it means our money can grow and be withdrawn tax free decades from now. This is tremendous. Someone else today mentioned a $47K TFSA in only 2 years. That is a 300% growth rate. This type of person, and most people who max out TFSAs for that matter, are doing themselves a huge favour by making their nest egg grow in a TFSA rather than an RRSP. It almost seems too good to be true. I think people are slowly realizing what a great thing we have. Use it to its fullest advantage!


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

What is the closest American equivalent to the TFSA, is it the Roth IRA?


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> I'm sure you can clobber what I'm about to say with more precise math and calcs, but I don't see how RRSPs are tax neutral. Especially when the investments will cause the amounts transferred to RRIF to be quite inflated over the original amount. Say I invested $50K over my working life, and this doubled to $100K. I would be taxed on that $100K. Had I of put that $50K in TFSAs I would have been taxed on $50K. IMHO it is better to pay tax on half rather than double.


This is an example of a 30 year old just starting out, earning 45K with a mere 10K in his RRSP. His salary is expected to grow at 3%, inflation 2%, rate of return 5%. Forecasting out to a ripe old 'die-broke' age of 100, the RRSP scenario delivers him a $35,272 constant life style over his entire pre and post retirement life span. If he instead, decides to invest 100% in his TFSA going forward, his ATI comes in at $35,233.

The RRSP scenario is within a 'c***-hair' of the TFSA scenario, but it makes my point that it is tax neutral. Now, I publish these runs, so anyone can challenge them mathematically. Who knows, you may find a mistake, but until then, I stand by my "RRSP is tax neutral" statement.

Oh... in these reports, anything referred to as nonreg is, in fact, tfsa (no tax on growth).

Tax free route

RRSP route


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

steve41 said:


> The RRSP scenario is within a 'c***-hair' of the TFSA scenario, but it makes my point that it is tax neutral.


+1

I just had to put quotes around this one.

In addition, it is possible to sway in the RRSPs favor by using 'creative' and easy techniques like leveraged meltdowns, and/or retiring early. I personally plan to have a few years of 0 income. I can then get those juicy RRSP monies.

I re-emphasize my point that people can easily use both. I was going to post some numbers based on family incomes but have grown lazy.

Put money in both. Maximize or at least contribute to both, retire early, take money out of your RRSP while you have no working income, let your TFSA continue to grow, then use that money when your RRSPs run dry.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Sampson said:


> Put money in both. Maximize or at least contribute to both, retire early, take money out of your RRSP while you have no working income, let your TFSA continue to grow, then use that money when your RRSPs run dry.


I really like this idea and have thought of it before. For anyone with the retire early idea, deplete the RRSP, then you can use TFSA. (and not have benefits clawed back)


----------



## Bullseye (Apr 5, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> I'm sure you can clobber what I'm about to say with more precise math and calcs, but I don't see how RRSPs are tax neutral. Especially when the investments will cause the amounts transferred to RRIF to be quite inflated over the original amount. Say I invested $50K over my working life, and this doubled to $100K. I would be taxed on that $100K. Had I of put that $50K in TFSAs I would have been taxed on $50K. IMHO it is better to pay tax on half rather than double.


Again, assuming same tax rate in as out, your end result would be the same with RRSP or TFSA! To see examples of this, look at the link to the Jamie Golombek article in the first few posts of this thread.


----------



## GeniusBoy27 (Jun 11, 2010)

+2 to Steve's calculations, especially with the option of early retirement and getting at the RRSPs. 

I like the option, if something happens that we can use the RRSPs to retire early. And I'm sure my wife won't want to work until she's 65.

However, if you're disciplined and reinvest, it ensures a nest egg that you can always fall back on. Deferring paying tax is always a good thing, if you have the money to do so. (i.e. I rather have the money now, do something with it, and pay the tax 25-30 years down the road.)


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

I agree that the RRSP/TFSA is tax neutral in the scenario described by Steve.

This doesn't work for all situations however.

For someone in a high tax bracket who retires and earns less money (in today's dollars) - they will benefit from the RRSP more so than the TFSA - unless the OAS clawback comes into play.


----------



## Bullseye (Apr 5, 2009)

Four Pillars said:


> For someone in a high tax bracket who retires and earns less money (in today's dollars) - they will benefit from the RRSP more so than the TFSA - unless the OAS clawback comes into play.


Or the GIS, or the Age Credit. There are certain ranges of incomes where the effective marginal tax rate is 78% on RRSP withdrawls because of these!

If you're 71 with full CPP and no other pension, you'd be entitled to some GIS, but mandatory RRIF withdrawls would eliminate this, possibly to the point where you'd be paying more in taxes on every dollar of RRSP withdrawn that you'd received when you made the RRSP contribution. Even if you did it at the highest tax bracket!

So I agree that RRSP can offer more benefit than TFSA, but with lots of caveats. You really need to do some good tax planning before and after retirement to ensure you DO benefit.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Bullseye said:


> Or the GIS, or the Age Credit. There are certain ranges of incomes where the effective marginal tax rate is 78% on RRSP withdrawls because of these!
> 
> If you're 71 with full CPP and no other pension, you'd be entitled to some GIS, but mandatory RRIF withdrawls would eliminate this, possibly to the point where you'd be paying more in taxes on every dollar of RRSP withdrawn that you'd received when you made the RRSP contribution. Even if you did it at the highest tax bracket!
> 
> So I agree that RRSP can offer more benefit than TFSA, but with lots of caveats. You really need to do some good tax planning before and after retirement to ensure you DO benefit.


Agreed - planning is essential.

I'm assuming that someone who is in a high tax bracket while working, is very unlikely to be able to qualify for any GIS. OAS clawback is a more likely problem - although with income splitting - you need quite a bit of income before it becomes a factor.

I'm not familiar with the age credit rules - is it phased out if your income is too high? I thought it just increased the amount of "tax free" income you could make?


----------



## Bullseye (Apr 5, 2009)

Four Pillars said:


> Agreed - planning is essential.
> 
> I'm assuming that someone who is in a high tax bracket while working, is very unlikely to be able to qualify for any GIS. OAS clawback is a more likely problem - although with income splitting - you need quite a bit of income before it becomes a factor.
> 
> I'm not familiar with the age credit rules - is it phased out if your income is too high? I thought it just increased the amount of "tax free" income you could make?


You could theortically have someone in a high tax bracket all their working life, maxing out RRSP's, but with no other pension. They could end up qualifying for GIS, which is based on income, not assets. 

The 15% age credit starts to phase out at around $31k income, and is gone by $63K-ish. So any RRSP income that takes you above $31k gets whacked with an extra effective 15% tax on every dollar up.

An old article, but this gives more info about the age credit;

http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=b5d42a47-1f57-45b3-ad25-fcefb9ac0d0e&k=73649


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Just to show that prior example wasn't a fluke, I changed the scenario so as to show how a high income earner who, rather than saving for retirement only (die-broke scenario), this time we gave him a $90K salary and instead of dying broke, we forced out a specific net estate ($ 1 million in todays$) at age 100. The same results, except that this time the RRSP won a bit more handily.

BTW.... I don't set out these examples to grind a particular axe... it just turns out that way.

Remember, all references to nonregistered capital in these runs should be thought of as TFSA in nature. Further, the TFSA rule ($5K maximum) are broken... these runs are there just to show the 'tax-neutrality' of the RRSP.

Taxfree route (1)

RRSP route (1)


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> I get it steve. The issue is bigger than that though, and this is what people don't seem to get. If I contribute $20K and get a tax "refund" on that today and my RRSP grows to $50K, when I withdraw it (even if my annual income is lower) I am ultimately taxed on $50K, not on $20K which is what happens when I put the money in the TFSA.
> 
> I think the TFSA is a better deal.


Actually, there is another factor to the RRSP puzzle that people sweep under the carpet. Specifically, the better tax treatment of capital gains.

Using your final RRSP growth value of $50K - regardless of how the original $20K grew to $50K, on withdrawal the entire $50K is taxed as income. Capital gains in a TFSA don't generate taxes and in a non-registered account only half of the capital gain is taxed.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

In both those prior examples, it doesn't matter what is in the RRSP.... it grows at the rate indicated. Capital gains have nothing to do with it... whether the growth is pure interest or capital gains... the RRSP and the TFSA come out the same. Read the PDFs. Tax neutral is tax neutral.


----------

