# Various surveys of Canadian retirees as reported by Sunlife



## janus10 (Nov 7, 2013)

I didn't see this posted previously, so hopefully it is of value to people here. You can find several reports at this URL:

https://www.sunlife.ca/ca/Learn+and+Plan/Market+insights/Retirement+Now+Report?vgnLocale=en_CA

They include:

The Sun Life Retirement Now Report explores the current state of retirement across the country. It's based on a coast-to-coast survey of 4,010 working and retired Canadians, conducted by Ipsos Reid and commissioned by Sun Life annually.

Canadians are living on just over 60 per cent of what they earned before retiring

Sun Life survey finds almost 90 per cent of retired Canadians positive about retirement

Percentage of pre-retirement income that retirees are living on

Monthly expenses faced by retirees across Canada

Monthly expenses faced by workers across Canada

2016 report

 View the full 2016 Sun Life Retirement Now Report

 View the Special Report on mid-market Canadians (those with $100,000 to $500,000 in investable assets)

 View the Special Report Highlights – An infographic-style summary of the 4 key mid-market findings


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The biggest difference is no CPP/EI/union/pension contributions and much lower taxes. The first $50000 we earn is tax free.

Also reduced expenses......no childcare expenses, lower car insurance premiums, no work related expenses, lower grocery and utility bills.

The problem isn't going to be spending. It will be the lack of retirement income.

Many of the retirees in the survey probably have DB pensions. Many future retirees won't have any pensions or savings.

CPP/OAS/GIS won't provide much of a retirement, especially since so few people qualify for the maximum benefits.

Best advice for people who want to retire well is to get a job in the public service with a DB pension and stay there for 30 years.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I feel stupid for not pursuing a job in government or a crown corp electric utility. Sigh.

There are parking ticket officers who have more secure retirements than me, due to their pensions (like OMERS).


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Those numbers may reflect reality for today however I suspect that the numbers and the satisfaction levels will be very different 15/20/25 years from now. And not for the better.

I quit a civil service job early in my career. It was the right decision for me. Not worth staying if you do not like the job or the prospects for advancement, etc. Private sector paid more, better opportunities in my field. The trick is to have the self discipline to save and prepare for retirement.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

> Canadians are living on just over 60 per cent of what they earned before retiring


 Does that mean that their retirement lifestyle is just 60 percent of what it it was pre-retirement? If so, then YIKES|!


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Yikes is right. 
Their question appears to have been "what income replacement rate have you achieved in retirement (i.e. what percentage of the salary you earned at retirement)". The answer is 62%. 
It seemed to me the question should be "how much did you spend while working and how much do you spend now retired?
The monthly expenses tables say that when you retire you cut your monthly spending on food from $464/mo to $396/mo - should that be /wk? Move over fido.
It says that you go from spending $971/mo to $731/mo for housing (including utilities and property taxes). How does that drop just by retiring?


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

I have said it before and will say it again that "basing you retirement income needs at a % of pre retirement income is nonsense". This only assumes that you spend 100% of your income while working. For example, I was fortunate in enjoying a fairly high income in my latter years but only spent maybe 30-40% of it. No way I need 60% after I retire. Go figure. I have been retired 15 years and still only spend about 35% of my pr retirement income.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The CPP expansion was a start in the right direction, but would have been better if people could choose to contribute higher levels to increase their own benefits. They also could have allowed "lump sum" contributions to increase benefits 20 or 30 years into the future.

I know some people would rather look after their own investments, but for many it would have been a good option.

My son isn't interested in investing. He matches his employer contribution to a mutual fund with an insurance company.

He has no idea how much he will receive at retirement. He can contribute more and even lump sum contributions, but there is still no guarantee on the benefits. A stock market crash on the cusp of retirement could wipe out decades of contributions.

In a situation like his it would have been a better option to pay more into the CPP for a guaranteed payout.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

ian said:


> I quit a civil service job early in my career. It was the right decision for me. Not worth staying if you do not like the job or the prospects for advancement, etc. Private sector paid more, better opportunities in my field. The trick is to have the self discipline to save and prepare for retirement.


I'm not sure how valuable it is that private sector pays more, when it also leaves you out to dry with respect to retirement / pension.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

sags said:


> The CPP expansion was a start in the right direction, but would have been better if people could choose to contribute higher levels to increase their own benefits. They also could have allowed "lump sum" contributions to increase benefits 20 or 30 years into the future.


I think "lump sum" investing with CPP would be ideal. I know there are complexities associated with this, but I think it would be great. You could have your "pooled" pension and your own pension all taken care for you if you didn't, couldn't, wouldn't invest on your own.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Yikes is right.
> Their question appears to have been "what income replacement rate have you achieved in retirement (i.e. what percentage of the salary you earned at retirement)". The answer is 62%.
> It seemed to me the question should be "how much did you spend while working and how much do you spend now retired?


The lower percentage spending has been well-documented in various forums.


> The monthly expenses tables say that when you retire you cut your monthly spending on food from $464/mo to $396/mo - should that be /wk? Move over fido.


In our case, we have cut out 10 lunches per week by being at home. Plus we cook more and the quality of the food has gone up. We also have time to shop for bargains. The low reduction is probably from eating out with friends reducing the savings.


> It says that you go from spending $971/mo to $731/mo for housing (including utilities and property taxes). How does that drop just by retiring?


This one seems odd to me. We have two spare bedrooms. And a snowbird place. We could easily achieve it by downsizing to a 2 BR apartment. or by renting out one of our places.

We also save on
- clothing
- heating/cooling by going somewhere temperate
- gas and parking
- travel by selecting cheap times and going for longer
- RRSP deposits
- taxes, including property taxes due to rebates


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Yikes is right.
> Their question appears to have been "what income replacement rate have you achieved in retirement (i.e. what percentage of the salary you earned at retirement)". The answer is 62%.
> It seemed to me the question should be "how much did you spend while working and how much do you spend now retired?
> The monthly expenses tables say that when you retire you cut your monthly spending on food from $464/mo to $396/mo - should that be /wk? Move over fido.
> It says that you go from spending $971/mo to $731/mo for housing (including utilities and property taxes). How does that drop just by retiring?


On food, that seems reasonable for a couple for a month. Are you really spending 400/wk on food?? That seems really high.

On housing, I would suspect that the pre-retirement number includes a mortgage payment for a lot of people, and they don't retire until the mortgage is paid off.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Spudd said:


> On food, that seems reasonable for a couple for a month. Are you really spending 400/wk on food?? That seems really high...


No, it seems I exaggerated. Just rolled up, 7mo avg to eo July was $895/month. We don't skimp on fruit & veggies, but we don't pay organic prices either. We buy from a mix of 3 stores including Costco and RealCdnSuperstore.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

I've seen two news reports on the cost of hydro in Ontario, they said its doubled in the past ten years outside of major centers.

A sampling of 4000 is hardly representative of the majority, interesting though that half of the sample worry about finances yet 90% feel good.


----------



## canew90 (Jul 13, 2016)

frase said:


> I have said it before and will say it again that "basing you retirement income needs at a % of pre retirement income is nonsense". This only assumes that you spend 100% of your income while working. For example, I was fortunate in enjoying a fairly high income in my latter years but only spent maybe 30-40% of it. No way I need 60% after I retire. Go figure. I have been retired 15 years and still only spend about 35% of my pr retirement income.


Pre-retirement earnings will change and could change drastically. I can remember being able to buy a house for $17,000 and gas at 25 cents a gallon, not litre. As one gets closer to retirement, hopefully your earnings has grown and you can save even more and grow your income faster. If one invests for Income Generation and the income continues to grow, by the time one retires your investment income will probably be more than you need. 



james4beach said:


> I'm not sure how valuable it is that private sector pays more, when it also leaves you out to dry with respect to retirement / pension.


Mindset, rely on someone else to provide for your future, or take care of yourself first.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I'm not sure how valuable it is that private sector pays more, when it also leaves you out to dry with respect to retirement / pension.


What is it worth to one's health to enjoy going to work instead of dreading it?

Cheers


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

james4beach said:


> I'm not sure how valuable it is that private sector pays more, when it also leaves you out to dry with respect to retirement / pension.


Often the government job would have a higher pay as well. Of course it's the private sector that ultimately pays for all government expenditure, including pensions.


----------

