# CPP break even chart



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

CPP has a penalty of 0.6% per month (7.2% annually) for taking it earlier than age 65. So, if your benefit is $1,000 per month, by choosing to take it at age 64, your benefit will be reduced by 7.2% or $72.00 for a benefit of $928.00. If you take CPP at 60, the reduction is 36% and the $1,000.00 monthly benefit would be reduced to $640.00.

Conversely, if you choose to wait beyond 65, CPP increases by 0.7% a month or 8.4% per year. Therefore, a $1,000 monthly benefit at 65 becomes $1,084.00 at 66, and $1,420.00 at age 70.

I made up an excel sheet to calculate the "break even" period for taking it each year from age 60 to age 70. Although I used $1,000.00 (purely at random) as the monthly benefit at age 65, the break even point should be the same for everyone regardless of how much your benefit will be because the formula used is the same. The column "birthday" indicates how much you would have collected up to that day. If you take CPP at 60, on your 61st birthday you would have collected $7,680 from your 60th birthday until your 61st birthday.

Obviously, choosing when to take CPP is a very personal decision. It's not always about getting the most money possible, but about getting the most value for your money. Take it early and you can leave investments until later and have the use of the money while you are still active. Take it later and you will collect more if you live long enough, but will you be healthy enough to enjoy the extra money? Or, will you be spending your days on the couch because you have no energy? But, if you're still active well into your 80's, then maybe it was worth while to wait to collect.

Sorry about the formatting, copy/paste doesn't transfer nicely. Hopefully some people will find this chart useful...or at least informative.


b-day CPP at 60	CPP at 61 CPP at 62 CPP at 63 CPP at 64 
61 $7,680 $0 $0 $0 $0
62 $15,360 $8,544 $0 $0 $0
63 $23,040 $17,088 $9,408 $0 $0
64 $30,720 $25,632 $18,816 $10,272 $0
65 $38,400 $34,176 $28,224 $20,544 $11,136
66 $46,080 $42,720 $37,632 $30,816 $22,272
67 $53,760 $51,264 $47,040 $41,088 $33,408
68 $61,440 $59,808 $56,448 $51,360 $44,544
69 $69,120 $68,352 $65,856 $61,632 $55,680
70 $76,800 $76,896 $75,264 $71,904 $66,816
71 $84,480 $85,440 $84,672 $82,176 $77,952
72 $92,160 $93,984 $94,080 $92,448 $89,088
73 $99,840 $102,528 $103,488 $102,720 $100,224
74 $107,520 $111,072 $112,896 $112,992 $111,360
75 $115,200 $119,616 $122,304 $123,264 $122,496
76 $122,880 $128,160 $131,712 $133,536 $133,632
77 $130,560 $136,704 $141,120 $143,808 $144,768
78 $138,240 $145,248 $150,528 $154,080 $155,904
79 $145,920 $153,792 $159,936 $164,352 $167,040
80 $153,600 $162,336 $169,344 $174,624 $178,176
81 $161,280 $170,880 $178,752 $184,896 $189,312
82 $168,960 $179,424 $188,160 $195,168 $200,448
83 $176,640 $187,968 $197,568 $205,440 $211,584
84 $184,320 $196,512 $206,976 $215,712 $222,720
85 $192,000 $205,056 $216,384 $225,984 $233,856
86 $199,680 $213,600 $225,792 $236,256 $244,992
87 $207,360 $222,144 $235,200 $246,528 $256,128
88 $215,040 $230,688 $244,608 $256,800 $267,264
89 $222,720 $239,232 $254,016. $267,072 $278,400
90 $230,400 $247,776 $263,424 $277,344 $289,536


CPP at 65 CPP at 66 CPP at 67 CPP at 68 CPP at 69 CPP at 70
61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
62 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
64 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
65 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
66 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
67 $24,000 $13,008 $0 $0 $0 $0
68 $36,000 $26,016 $14,016 $0 $0 $0
69 $48,000 $39,024 $28,032 $15,024 $0 $0
70 $60,000 $52,032 $42,048 $30,048 $16,032 $0
71 $72,000 $65,040 $56,064 $45,072 $32,064 $17,040
72 $84,000 $78,048 $70,080 $60,096 $48,096 $34,080
73 $96,000 $91,056 $84,096 $75,120 $64,128 $51,120
74 $108,000 $104,064 $98,112 $90,144 $80,160 $68,160
75 $120,000 $117,072 $112,128 $105,168 $96,192 $85,200
76 $132,000 $130,080 $126,144 $120,192 $112,224 $102,240
77 $144,000 $143,088 $140,160 $135,216 $128,256 $119,280
78 $156,000 $156,096 $154,176 $150,240 $144,288 $136,320
79 $168,000 $169,104 $168,192 $165,264 $160,320 $153,360
80 $180,000 $182,112 $182,208 $180,288 $176,352 $170,400
81 $192,000 $195,120 $196,224 $195,312 $192,384 $187,440
82 $204,000 $208,128 $210,240 $210,336 $208,416 $204,480
83 $216,000 $221,136 $224,256 $225,360 $224,448 $221,520
84 $228,000 $234,144 $238,272 $240,384 $240,480 $238,560
85 $240,000 $247,152 $252,288 $255,408 $256,512 $255,600
86 $252,000 $260,160 $266,304 $270,432 $272,544 $272,640
87 $264,000 $273,168 $280,320 $285,456 $288,576 $289,680
88 $276,000 $286,176 $294,336 $300,480 $304,608 $306,720
89 $288,000 $299,184 $308,352 $315,504 $320,640 $323,760
90 $300,000 $312,192 $322,368 $330,528 $336,672 $340,800


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Interesting chart so if I get this right I started my CPP at 63 I see at 72 the age 60 taker and the age 63 taker are about even if I'm reading it right.

72 $92,160 $93,984 $94,080 $92,448 I also see where the guy that started at 61 and 62 cross at age 74 $107,520 $111,072 $112,896 $112,992.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

http://www.fimetrics.com/cpp-when.pdf

OK.... here is a more rigorous study. Our guy is 45 and plans to retire at 60. His salary (gross) is 80K and currently has 300K in his RRSP. Investment ROR is 4% and he lives in BC.

If he chooses CPP at 70, he will live to age 95 before his capital runs out, whereas if he chooses CPP at 60 it runs out at 91ish.

However, examine his Net Worth.... if he chooses CPP at 60 and dies prior to 80, his estate benefits. If he lives past 80 , his estate loses.

BTW....In almost every case, the crossover happens at the life expectancy for a non smoker (M or F).


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Thanks Steve. A much more useful post than the first post which was frankly a big waste of electrons.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Thanks Steve. A much more useful post than the first post which was frankly a big waste of electrons.


Not as big of a waste of electrons as your comment. 

It's a simple chart that shows the CPP break even point for 10 different years. It's simply a tool that people can use in conjunction with other retirement tools and charts. Don't be so smug and arrogant as to assume that no one would find it useful. You don't speak for everyone.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I wasn't being smug or arrogant.
I was pointing out that Steve's info was useful and that your post was a waste of electrons/ space/ screen, however you want to characterize it.
Do a google search of your thread title and you will find a number of useful analyses of the impact of taking cpp at various ages. 
Then go back and focus on the Trump thread again. That one I ignore.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

This is the retirement category on a money forum, and I know several people who find it useful, so I thought that posting it here might appeal to some people. It conveniently covers 11 different CPP start dates over a 30 year period on a single page and provides a quick reference for those who are interested.

If you're not interested in the chart, just ignore it.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

What Steve is saying is useful and what bass player says is useful the difference is do I care what the estate is left with, for me no I'm more interested in the break even points.You see in my case I did not want to settle for the minimum at 60 which at the time was something like 680.00 per month, I waited till just before age 63 when I started collecting 940.00 a month. For me CPP is really about thinking in terms of monthly income not the end race of who gets the most out. Buddy could get hit by a car at 68 do we call that a loss I don't know, maybe Buddy drops dead at 73 because of a heart attack and had started collecting CPP at 60 or 68 who really knows what can happen. 
At the end of the day my retirement is based on doing what I can to have a high monthly cash flow so I think between my company DB pension which is well funded and CPP plus OAS I'm doing so well my bank account grows every month. I know several guy's that are getting by on everything at the minimum end, their choice but not one I would like. I've talked with these guy's about their choice as far as they are concerned applying for GIS is a good deal as they get something for nothing that the rest of us don't get. They can't afford to travel even gas for the car is well thought out I don't wish to live my retirement in this fashion.


----------



## mrbizi (Dec 19, 2009)

One can also look at delaying CPP as some kind of "insurance" you pay in case you live longer than expected and/or your investment portfolio tanks or performs significantly less than you had anticipated.

This is even more important for people who do not have any other sources of income in retirement other than CPP, OAS and personal investments.

This will obviously work only if one can afford to delay collecting CPP.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

bass player said:


> This is the retirement category on a money forum, and I know several people who find it useful, so I thought that posting it here might appeal to some people. It conveniently covers 11 different CPP start dates over a 30 year period on a single page and provides a quick reference for those who are interested.
> 
> If you're not interested in the chart, just ignore it.


Your chart is a good overview. It gets more involved though as there are returns on the $ you get and the effects of the time value of money or inflation. The guy taking CPP starting at age 60 for ex will get an earlier return on the $ if he chooses to reinvest them vs the guy at 65 but the principal is less. The $ received at age 80 are worth less than the $ received at age 60 etc 

I ground the math in Excel bringing everything back to the present value at age 65 ( future value for pmt starting at 60);

*Return :* 4%
*Inflation:* 2%
*
My findings:*

*Break even start at 65 vs 60: *76 (start at 65 is better the longer you live past 76)
*Break even start at 70 vs 65 or 60 *: 82 (start at 70 is better the longer you live past 82)


----------



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

When planning for retirement, break evens should not even be considered. All plans should be based around living a long time, even if that appears to be a remote possibility. The reason being that a long retirement is the most expensive to fund. Running out of money before running out of life is a big potential problem for you and perhaps for your children. This is the essence of longevity risk. And one very good way to minimize this risk is to delay CPP and OAS to the max. To do this you must of course have enough saved to bridge to age 70.


----------



## Dogger1953 (Dec 14, 2012)

One problem with this analysis is that it assumes that your "average lifetime earnings" remains the same between age 60 and 70. If you take your CPP at age 60, it would be based on your average earnings for your best 34.86 years, whereas if you take your CPP at age 65 or later it's based on your average earnings for your best 39 years. This means that if your CPP at age 60 would be 64% of $1,000, your CPP at age 65 could be as little as 100% of $893.85 (if you're not working between age 60 and 65). I refer to this situation as receiving a larger slice of a smaller pie, and it can significantly change the breakeven calculations.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

mrbizi said:


> One can also look at delaying CPP as some kind of "insurance" you pay in case you live longer than expected and/or your investment portfolio tanks or performs significantly less than you had anticipated.
> 
> This is even more important for people who do not have any other sources of income in retirement other than CPP, OAS and personal investments.
> 
> This will obviously work only if one can afford to delay collecting CPP.





gaspr said:


> When planning for retirement, break evens should not even be considered. All plans should be based around living a long time, even if that appears to be a remote possibility. The reason being that a long retirement is the most expensive to fund. Running out of money before running out of life is a big potential problem for you and perhaps for your children. This is the essence of longevity risk. And one very good way to minimize this risk is to delay CPP and OAS to the max. To do this you must of course have enough saved to bridge to age 70.


These replies really get to the heart of the issue. Many people look at it as "a bird in the hand"... better to take it early in because if you delay you may die early and never receive any CPP.

Few people consider what would happen if they live a long time and run out of money. For retirees that have an indexed DB pension that along with CPP & OAS covers all their non-discretionary spending needs have little risk of outliving their savings. But for retirees that don't have an indexed guaranteed well funded pension, delaying CPP is good insurance against high inflation, low investment returns, or simply "running out of money before running out of life".


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

Dogger1953 said:


> One problem with this analysis is that it assumes that your "average lifetime earnings" remains the same between age 60 and 70. If you take your CPP at age 60, it would be based on your average earnings for your best 34.86 years, whereas if you take your CPP at age 65 or later it's based on your average earnings for your best 39 years. This means that if your CPP at age 60 would be 64% of $1,000, your CPP at age 65 could be as little as 100% of $893.85 (if you're not working between age 60 and 65). I refer to this situation as receiving a larger slice of a smaller pie, and it can significantly change the breakeven calculations.


Thank you Dogger. That explains why I took CPP at age 60. I had stopped working at age 55 so every year of not working was negating the annual increase I would have received for waiting another year.


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

Inflation hits DB pension the same as everybody else.

In our case I lose about $170/month at 60. I did find a site that allowed this drop and have lost it.


----------



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

Dogger1953 said:


> One problem with this analysis is that it assumes that your "average lifetime earnings" remains the same between age 60 and 70. If you take your CPP at age 60, it would be based on your average earnings for your best 34.86 years, whereas if you take your CPP at age 65 or later it's based on your average earnings for your best 39 years. This means that if your CPP at age 60 would be 64% of $1,000, your CPP at age 65 could be as little as 100% of $893.85 (if you're not working between age 60 and 65). I refer to this situation as receiving a larger slice of a smaller pie, and it can significantly change the breakeven calculations.


Yes, this is an important point. But to me, it applies only to your decision of when to retire, not to whether or not you should defer taking benefits.


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

pwm said:


> Thank you Dogger. That explains why I took CPP at age 60. I had stopped working at age 55 so every year of not working was negating the annual increase I would have received for waiting another year.


I retired at 55 also. I sent my information to Dogger for analysis. The results suggested that, while increased years of not working would have an impact, it would not negate the increase I would have received for waiting another year. You can look at the data from many points of view. In the end I have decided to wait till 65, but no later. I found Dogger's analysis very worthwhile and I recommend his services if you want precise data with which to make an informed decision.


----------



## mrbizi (Dec 19, 2009)

Dogger1953 said:


> One problem with this analysis is that it assumes that your "average lifetime earnings" remains the same between age 60 and 70. If you take your CPP at age 60, it would be based on your average earnings for your best 34.86 years, whereas if you take your CPP at age 65 or later it's based on your average earnings for your best 39 years. This means that if your CPP at age 60 would be 64% of $1,000, your CPP at age 65 could be as little as 100% of $893.85 (if you're not working between age 60 and 65). I refer to this situation as receiving a larger slice of a smaller pie, and it can significantly change the breakeven calculations.


Dogger, in your example above, if however that person is still able to earn from ages 60-70 at an income that is higher or equal to his "average lifetime earnings" at age 60, will it mean he will receive a higher pension if he delays collecting CPP? 
Thanks.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

GreatLaker said:


> These replies really get to the heart of the issue. Many people look at it as "a bird in the hand"... better to take it early in because if you delay you may die early and never receive any CPP.


That is something that should not be overlooked. Even if you live long enough to "come ahead" on CPP, what will your quality of life be for the last few years? Will you be able to enjoy the extra money you delayed taking?



> Few people consider what would happen if they live a long time and run out of money. For retirees that have an indexed DB pension that along with CPP & OAS covers all their non-discretionary spending needs have little risk of outliving their savings. But for retirees that don't have an indexed guaranteed well funded pension, delaying CPP is good insurance against high inflation, low investment returns, or simply "running out of money before running out of life".


And some people don't need the "insurance" of taking it later. And, almost always, people are more active when they are 60 than when they are 75...so, for them, the extra money could be more useful for travel, golf, etc., while they can still do those things, or at least do them more frequently. I see 60 and 70-year old people on the golf course all the time, but those still golfing at 80 are rare. My parents are 79 and 75 and their travel days (as well as those of many of their friends of the same age) are winding down because they just don't have the energy any more.

I'm probably taking the "bird in the hand" approach. If I live longer than the actuary tables and, then I'll crack a drink and celebrate beating the odds instead of being upset that I left some money on the table.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Dogger1953 said:


> One problem with this analysis is that it assumes that your "average lifetime earnings" remains the same between age 60 and 70. If you take your CPP at age 60, it would be based on your average earnings for your best 34.86 years, whereas if you take your CPP at age 65 or later it's based on your average earnings for your best 39 years. This means that if your CPP at age 60 would be 64% of $1,000, your CPP at age 65 could be as little as 100% of $893.85 (if you're not working between age 60 and 65). I refer to this situation as receiving a larger slice of a smaller pie, and it can significantly change the breakeven calculations.


Thanks for that information. I retired at 53, so by waiting until 65 to collect CPP, it seems that I'm making the pie smaller...perhaps not enough to offset the early penalty, but it is a factor that needs to be considered.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Dogger1953 said:


> One problem with this analysis


Thank you so much for adding this information. I did not realize that the number of years changed. I guess I need to do some more research.

I don't know about "most people" but I have no intention of working past 55, so bass player's original table would be a good deal more useful if it factored in this effect.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

From the comments above about the smaller pie, it has got me thinking. I never really figured the CPP thing out. I retired at 55 and figured I would take it at 60 as I don't think I will have an extremely long life due to family history. Then I went online and checked what I could get and it was around $600-650 so I figured I would wait till 62 as I don't really need the money at this point and my wife should wait till 65 as she has a much better history of family longevity. Does this mean the pie at 62 will be a lot smaller as we both do not work ? or is it just our total working years when we contributed that are used for the calculation ?


----------



## Dogger1953 (Dec 14, 2012)

mrbizi said:


> Dogger, in your example above, if however that person is still able to earn from ages 60
> 
> Yes, if your earnings after age 60 are higher than your "average lifetime earnings" (which means in proportion to the YMPE), your CPP will increase if you delay collecting your CPP; both because of the age-adjustment percentage and because of the increase in your average lifetime earnings. In that case you'd receive a larger slice of a larger pie.


----------



## Dogger1953 (Dec 14, 2012)

bass player said:


> Thanks for that information. I retired at 53, so by waiting until 65 to collect CPP, it seems that I'm making the pie smaller...perhaps not enough to offset the early penalty, but it is a factor that needs to be considered.


Yes, your pie could be shrinking by approx. 2.5% per year (more if you're eligible to claim the child-rearing dropout) due to adding an extra year of zero earnings, but the size of your slice could be increasing by approx. 7-11% due to your increased age. In the end, you'll always get more pie if you delay.


----------



## Dogger1953 (Dec 14, 2012)

gardner said:


> Thank you so much for adding this information. I did not realize that the number of years changed. I guess I need to do some more research.
> 
> I don't know about "most people" but I have no intention of working past 55, so bass player's original table would be a good deal more useful if it factored in this effect.


It would be impossible to create an accurate table to account for this factor, because your "pie" could shrink anywhere from 0% to approx. 2.5% (or more if the child-rearing dropout applies) for each year of zero earnings after age 60.


----------



## Dogger1953 (Dec 14, 2012)

Mechanic said:


> From the comments above about the smaller pie, it has got me thinking. I never really figured the CPP thing out. I retired at 55 and figured I would take it at 60 as I don't think I will have an extremely long life due to family history. Then I went online and checked what I could get and it was around $600
> 
> As mentioned in other replies, your "pie" could shrink by as little as 0% or as much as approx. 2.5% (or more if the child-rearing dropout applies) for each year of zero earnings after age 60. It all depends on your lifetime record of CPP earnings. But the net amount of monthly pie that you get will always be more if you delay.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

bass player said:


> That is something that should not be overlooked. Even if you live long enough to "come ahead" on CPP, what will your quality of life be for the last few years? Will you be able to enjoy the extra money you delayed taking?
> 
> And some people don't need the "insurance" of taking it later. And, almost always, people are more active when they are 60 than when they are 75...so, for them, the extra money could be more useful for travel, golf, etc., while they can still do those things, or at least do them more frequently. I see 60 and 70-year old people on the golf course all the time, but those still golfing at 80 are rare. My parents are 79 and 75 and their travel days (as well as those of many of their friends of the same age) are winding down because they just don't have the energy any more.
> 
> I'm probably taking the "bird in the hand" approach. If I live longer than the actuary tables and, then I'll crack a drink and celebrate beating the odds instead of being upset that I left some money on the table.


You would not be getting "extra money" when you are older. It changes the balance of when you take funds from your own savings vs. when you get money from govt pensions (CPP/OAS), but your overall expected lifetime spending is the same. Spend more of your own savings when young, and more CPP/OAS when you are older, but your spending each year would not change. What it does provide more government guaranteed, indexed, lifetime income when you are older, and have less ability to recover from poor investment returns or high inflation. In fact a retiree can confidently spend more money when younger because they will have less concern about running out of money when older. It took a while for me to get the concept, but suddenly it clicked for me.

This article by Michael Kitces explains it well. It is US based but the basic concepts apply in Canada:
https://www.kitces.com/blog/the-asy...cial-security-benefits-as-the-ultimate-hedge/

IMO this strategy would not be necessary for a low-income retiree for whom CPP/OAS/GIS supply all their non-discretionary spending needs. It also is not necessary for a retiree with a well funded, indexed DB pension with a strong sponsor, that covers all their non-discretionary spending. It is useful for retirees that will need to depend on their own savings to cover their non-discretionary spending, who are at some risk of running out of money before they run out of life.


----------



## mrbizi (Dec 19, 2009)

Dogger1953 said:


> mrbizi said:
> 
> 
> > Dogger, in your example above, if however that person is still able to earn from ages 60
> ...


----------



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

Another good article on this topic by Michael James

http://www.michaeljamesonmoney.com/2017/03/the-case-for-delaying-cpp-and-oas-to.html

I agree with GreatLaker that this is a difficult concept to grasp and it took me a while as well. It is however worth making the effort, as it is an important topic for many. Also worth noting is that very few financial advisors will encourage you to spend down your savings early and defer benefits...most prefer to scare you into hoarding savings as long as possible because it is their best interest, not yours.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Or this: _Counterpoint: Why taking CPP at 60 can make sense, even when the hard math says otherwise_
http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/retirement/counterpoint-why-taking-cpp-at-60-can-make-sense-even-when-the-hard-math-says-otherwise/wcm/d81fe921-3cf9-48d0-a041-4048711696b3

Personally I think consideration should be given to eliminating the ability to take cpp early or late - just make it payable at age 65. I say this because in my experience, those without a lot of resources tend to grab it as soon as they can at age 60. These are folks who should be trying to maximize their indexed future retirement income and who may struggle later as a result of taking it early. I suppose they are likely to get oas and gis though. (I recognize that those who don't have the need also take it early - I did).

With regard to outliving your money. I don't intend to. I also don't intend to live to an age where my quality of life/health etc. have become badly compromised. With some fail safe plans in place, I'll exit before that point.

Not sure if all are aware that if you don't have the means, you can be subsidized in a basic room in a long term care home (Ontario) - this while the person next to you pays the whole shot if their income allows. While some basic are mutiple-bed 'ward' rooms, many now are a separate room that shares a washroom with a second - it depends on the facility. 
So if you have outlived your money, you can be housed, fed and medicated all on the government's tab. Of course the waiting lists are starting to grow long with very few new beds being built. I expect that if I ever become LTCH-eligible, the lack of availability will make it moot. To me the need to go into LTC would also mean that my quality of life has declined to the point where living has become moot as well.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Personally I think consideration should be given to eliminating the ability to take cpp early or late - just make it payable at age 65. I say this because in my experience, those without a lot of resources tend to grab it as soon as they can at age 60. These are folks who should be trying to maximize their indexed future retirement income and who may struggle later as a result of taking it early.


My experience is different. All the people that I know who took early CPP don't need the money. Not everyone cares about maximizing a benefit far into the future.

I retired at 53...if it was only about the money, I'd still be working. It's the same with CPP...if it was only about getting the most the money, then I'd probably wait. I was successful enough to retire at 53, so the last thing I want is someone telling me how they think that I should spend my retirement money, and that includes CPP.


----------

