# To defer or not to defer CPP to age 70 for up to a potential 42% increase



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

For those who are close to retirement or CPP at age 70 - what do you think of this opinion piece by an expert? I haven't read the newsprint comments yet but would be interested in this forum's pragmatic comments first.

Thanks to a rare event, deferring CPP until age 70 may no longer always be the best option



> FREDERICK VETTESE, THE GLOBE AND MAIL, SEPTEMBER 27, 2022
> 
> _The Canada Pension Plan contains endless subtleties that can trip up even the experts from time to time. My usual advice, to defer CPP until age 70 to get the most out of the plan, doesn’t work in 2022, at least not for seniors who are closing in on 70. The problem? High inflation coupled with mediocre wage gains.
> 
> ...


Above is its entirety in the event it goes behind a paywall.

Sounds alot like the "idea" of deferring taking CPP at age 70 has changed to not deferring to taking it (in lieu of the highest 42% advantage) is dependent on a prediction of which way the economic wind blows in the months to follow per this expert.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Skimmed that article yesterday and IIRC it only applies to those getting max CPP and over 65 right? In other words, a very small percentage of people it "might" effect.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ I haven't read the article as it goes into the nitty-gritty to the pennies math (and I'm not in the mood to decipher/verify them). So if I understand it correctly, deferring your CPP to age 70 can give you a potential 42% increase to your/any CPP amount so I don't think it just affects the max or that small % of the population.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Read the article, uses max cpp payout for the examples and them stopping CPP contributions.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I retired at 59. I did not have the required number of full CPP contribution years nor did I expect to have any earned/employment income going forward that would be subject to CPP contributions.

There were also some projected income tax considerations as well. Best advice I could get at the time based on the math was to take it at 60. This was counter to my first inclination. Same for DW. She had far fewer earning/CPP years but did have the child bearing years adjustment. 

Understand the basic rules, get a copy of your CPP contribution amounts , etc. CPP will send it to you on request. And get some outside advice if you think that it would help. 

My understanding is that there is a person on this forum who is ex CPP, understands the rules, and will provide consulting advice for a very reasonable fee.

The other consideration for me was the change in CPP regs in the 2012 timeframe.

I never went back to revisit the numbers and prove the assumptions. It was a done deal so I moved forward

Had a similar issue with OAS. I took it at 65. DW will apply at age 70 because of tax and full claw back issues.

If you expect to be eligible for GIS at 65 you may want to consider taking CPP at 60.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

ian said:


> Understand the basic rules, get a copy of your CPP contribution amounts , etc. CPP will send it to you on request. And get some outside advice if you think that it would help.


^^ This.

IMO taking it early, normal or late doesn't matter that much when people have signficant retirement savings. Of course we all want to maximize payback. My general rule (with some general assumptions) is ... if you need the money now to reach your expected lifestyle then take it earlier than later. Health issues may also play into an earlier than later plan.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> ^^ This.
> 
> IMO taking it early, normal or late doesn't matter that much when people have signficant retirement savings. Of course we all want to maximize payback. My general rule (with some general assumptions) is ... if you need the money now to reach your expected lifestyle then take it earlier than later. *Health issues may also play into an earlier than later plan.*


 ... that's my thinking too as each individual is specific but then why is Mr. Vettese always touting deferring to age 70 (or until now - the above article?) to get the (possible) extra 42%? I mean he's an "retirement income" expert. 

Say for folks who did follow his earlier advice to defer it to age 70 getting the extra 42% which puts them in an even higher tax bracket, does this mean they'll pay less tax or is the just the greed factor in play there? I don't get this expert's opinion at all, especially with the mumble-jumbles thrown in there for good measures.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Also...if there are two of you and you are both at maximum CPP....understand the CPP rules should one of you pass away prematurely after taking CPP. The rules pertaining to the maximums for the surviving partner may surprise you.

We try to make all of our financial decisions like this on a projected after tax basis. That is what we get to keep. It is not greed. It is prudent personal financial management.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... that's my thinking too as each individual is specific but then why is Mr. Vettese always touting deferring to age 70 (or until now - the above article?) to get the (possible) extra 42%? I mean he's an "retirement income" expert.


Expert or not, it's just an opinion article with vague details.



ian said:


> We try to make all of our financial decisions like this on a projected after tax basis. That is what we get to keep. It is not greed. It is prudent personal financial management.


^^ This.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The challenge that I see with articles like this, and others pertaining to what is needed for retirement are very general. They provide excellent vanilla information. The often repeated notion that you need 70 percent of working income as a retirement income is a good example of this.

Often enough to at least get people thinking about and perhaps putting some basic numbers on paper. Or...they may stimulate some to go out and speak with or consult with someone who has an excellent knowledge base on the subject and can apply that knowledge to an individual's specific financial situation and lifestyle goals.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

I believe the people pushing the idea of deferred CPP do not calculate it properly. The only way this narrative pencils out is if CPP is taken early and spent without calculating compensatorial gains of a self directed nest egg which would be more lightly loaded.

I've done the math on taking CPP early, investing it, and not spend the benefit or the gains until age 70, vs deferring CPP until 70. The numbers are similar using rather poor gains on the self directed CPP compounding side. Any GIC ladder investor would be wise to defer CPP but someone who has a history of anything close to market returns would be better to take CPP early.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> *I believe the people pushing the idea of deferred CPP do not calculate it properly.* The only way this narrative pencils out is if CPP is taken early and spent without calculating compensatorial gains of a self directed nest egg which would be more lightly loaded. ...


 ... LMAO ... and now care to tell that to Mr. Vettese, a "retirement mathematical expert (or in short a pensions expert)" (previously licensed) if I understand it correctly.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

TomB16 said:


> I believe the people pushing the idea of deferred CPP do not calculate it properly. The only way this narrative pencils out is if CPP is taken early and spent without calculating compensatorial gains of a self directed nest egg which would be more lightly loaded.
> 
> I've done the math on taking CPP early, investing it, and not spend the benefit or the gains until age 70, vs deferring CPP until 70. The numbers are similar using rather poor gains on the self directed CPP compounding side. Any GIC ladder investor would be wise to defer CPP but someone who has a history of anything close to market returns would be better to take CPP early.


That was part of our calculation.

The reality is there is no right answer, only the right answer for you based on your own financial situation,. I have no doubt that Fred Vettese, a highly respected pension professional actuary in his field, would be the first person to agree with this. That is certainly the message that I got from reading two of his books. He was an early proponent of unmasking the 70 percent myth that the financial industry proponents were advancing as pension income replacement for earnings.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

TomB16 said:


> Any GIC ladder investor would be wise to defer CPP but someone who has a history of anything close to market returns would be better to take CPP early.


Likely true in a bull market but in our current situation ... meh, I'm not so sure. I would say most people that would rely on CPP as a significant source of their yearly income probably not risk it in the market. Now if CPP is just added gravy income that's another story.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

After retirement we discovered that much more of our income was net income because of tax deductions for age, pension deduction, and income splitting.

Then remove contributions for CPP, EI, and union dues you don’t pay anymore plus no need to save for retirement, lower auto insurance and no work expenses and 50% of working income is enough.

It came as a surprise to us how much of our working income had been drained away.


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

The decision to take or delay CPP is, by design, actuarially neutral. This means that over a large population there is no dollar benefit to choosing one path or another. 
An individual may have specific reasons for favouring immediate gratification or deferral -- poor health or a need to melt down an over-large RRSP, for instance -- but an average person of average health can make either decision with a reasonable expectation that the choices are equivalent.

But this only takes into account dollars. It does not take into account risk.
Deferring increases guaranteed income from age 70 on. It shifts investment risk from the individual to the CPP pool. It also provides a form of insurance against unexpected longevity -- and inflation!
These are significant benefits to most people, most of the time. The future guarantees generally allow individuals to spend more early in retirement and enjoy greater income security later in retirement.

Don't take my word for it. 
Read the 38-page report prepared by Bonnie-Jeanne MacDonald for the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. MacDonald has a Phd and is the Director of Financial Security Research, National Institute on Ageing, at Toronto Metropolitan University. The pdf is here.

Or read Vettese. He was chief actuary for Morneau Shepell, one of Canadas largest HR, benefits and retirement administrative compmanies. He's written three books on retirement income.

By all means, do your own analysis if you're so inclined. Bear in mind your own credentials and expertise against those of Vettese and MacDonald.


PS. Vettese's example of a person receiving max CPP is immaterial. It doesn't matter whether you are due max CPP or 50% of max CPP. The decision to defer, or not, will have the same impact in percentage terms.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

fireseeker said:


> PS. Vettese's example of a person receiving max CPP is immaterial. It doesn't matter whether you are due max CPP or 50% of max CPP. The decision to defer, or not, will have the same impact in percentage terms.


I see max CPP as relevant in a few different ways. One he describes in the link above about not paying into CPP while still working. Secondly, I would believe most receiving max CPP are in a pretty good financial situation so a few dollars either way likely won't upset their retirement funds or plans.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

fireseeker said:


> By all means, do your own analysis if you're so inclined. Bear in mind your own credentials and expertise against those of Vettese and MacDonald.


Do you remember that economist with a Ph.D who was crazy smart, had it all figured out, and became one of the wealthiest men in the world?

Me, either.

We don't need another 150 years of data points to see that education is not a trump card when it comes to financial theory or even personal financial success.

You make some excellent points about how actuaries dispense equity, and some excellent other points, also. I'm just pointing out a Ph.D is no mic drop moment. Finance, yes. Economics, not so much.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

A better understanding of whether the defer to 70 idea is beneficial may better served in 2023 when the indexing numbers are known. Let the actuaries re-crunch their numbers. 

On a similar note, anybody with a DB pension will likely see a lower commuted value as the current interest rate is a big factor in that calculation. Of course, the commuted value has no impact on anybody already receiving their pension just as the few that have been blessed with an indexed DB pension really have nothing to worry about income wise in an inflationary environment.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

I know changes could take place in the years leading up to when I begin drawing CPP. The general consensus is to wait to 70 and never to take before 65. I think the calculator provided by Service Canada is one of the better ones available. General Information - Canada.ca (services.gc.ca) However, it does not allow for fluctuations in earnings over time. Ex. increased or decreased saving rates, inheritances, variable drawn downs of RRSP over time. The other major flaw is that it doesn't allow for spousal calculations. 

I understand that as I get closer to retirement I will need to meet with a professional for a deeper dive on specific scenarios. In order for me to retire before 65 I would need to start CPP around 62 in order to maintain my target level of income to age 90. This does not jive with my own spreadsheet calculations which has me taking CPP between 65 and 70 but with a larger RRSP wind down prior to 60. Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself, but I do not want to be caught off guard. I have also resigned myself to the fact that early retirement and max CPP rarely coincide. I am ok with not getting the maximum (most don't) and will receive well above the average. I think CPP is something many extreme FIRE folk may end up missing in their golden years.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

londoncalling said:


> In order for me to retire before 65 I would need to start CPP around 62 in order to maintain my target level of income to age 90. This does not jive with my own spreadsheet calculations which has me taking CPP between 65 and 70 but with a larger RRSP wind down prior to 60.


Why do your calculations not jive with the delayed CPP? Does your data show you would be better off taking CPP at 62?

My wife and I have commuted all but one DB pension. In the case of the one, she is going to take a noticeable haircut in November. I believe people's confidence in pensions run by someone other than themselves is misguided. The only person guided with our own best interests is ourselves and possibly our partner.

I am extremely glad to have the flexibility of a self directed retirement that allows us to optimize our finances to suit our needs. That, and our decades long history of out performing the CPP trust, is why I plan to take CPP early.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

londoncalling said:


> In order for me to retire before 65 I would need to start CPP around 62 in order to maintain my target level of income to age 90. This does not jive with my own spreadsheet calculations which has me taking CPP between 65 and 70 but with a larger RRSP wind down prior to 60.


What's the estimated monthly difference between 62 and 65 ... guessing maybe $200/month? Are your retirement numbers running that tight that $200/month would really make a significant difference?


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

@TomB16 and @cainvest 

Thanks for your questions.

To clarify the differences between the link above and my own number crunching:

The service Canada calculator requires a greater drawdown of my RRSP and DC plans than my own calculations but provides a greater CPP payout at than the excel calculator from FWF shared by long invest. I often don't trust my own math, but the spreadsheet allows one to enter more accurate numbers than the 5 year estimates on the linked calculator. The monthly difference is less than $300 a month between 62 and 65 which isn't going determine whether I eat cat food or caviar as a senior. However, I think the time between ending employment and starting pensions is the most critical time in the retirement plan. Market performance in those years probably have the greatest influence. I am more concerned that neither simulation is accurate enough for me to be confident I can retire earlier than planned. I'd rather be able to ramp up my savings now to secure that possibility than find out I have to work a couple of extra years and retire with less than I planned.

I had a discussion with a few folks this evening about changes to the commuted values because of interest rate changes this year. They weren't pleased to learn recently that they would have gotten a higher amount a year ago than would today even with an additional year of contributions. At least they were accepting of the explanation that these numbers are calculated by actuaries and not just picked at random. 

Although I share your sentiment Tom that our own interest is the best reason to guide our economic destination, many lack the knowledge that needs to accompany that journey. Perhaps I am biased as a former plan trustee who put a lot of faith in myself, my fellow trustees, and actuary and to a lesser extent the pension consultant. I did not have a lot of faith in our investment fund managers, who were great people, with a lot of knowledge in their fields be it fixed income, equities, real estate or alternative investments. I always felt their larger agenda was wanting us to increase our allocation to their products (which of course it was).


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

londoncalling said:


> @TomB16 and @cainvest
> However, I think the time between ending employment and starting pensions is the most critical time in the retirement plan. Market performance in those years probably have the greatest influence. I am more concerned that neither simulation is accurate enough for me to be confident I can retire earlier than planned. I'd rather be able to ramp up my savings now to secure that possibility than find out I have to work a couple of extra years and retire with less than I planned.


Makes sense to me, I'd rather play it a little safer than be sorry later. Sequence of returns risk is always something to carefully consider.


----------



## Thal81 (Sep 5, 2017)

My parents took it at 60 and I thought that was really dumb because they are swimming in work pension money. But I personally won't wait till 70 because I think the longevity risk gets significant. I doubt I'll live much longer past 80, the statistics agree. So I plan to take it at 65.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I either take the CPP money, that is controlled by someone else, at 60 or I take my own money, that is controlled by me, at 60 to replace that foregone income. Add to that the reduced benefit I will accumulate with 5 more years of $0 contributions that I will make between age 60 and 65 and there is little doubt in my mind that age 60 will be the day I get my first CPP cheque.

That said, each to their own. It is more of a preference decision in my opinion then a significant financial decision since there are too many unknowns to make an accurate financial decision.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> Add to that the reduced benefit I will accumulate with 5 more years of $0 contributions that I will make between age 60 and 65 and there is little doubt in my mind that age 60 will be the day I get my first CPP cheque.


I believe that works out to ~$30 less per month for each year of missing max contributions, so ~$150 less after 5 years.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

Glad to hear some differing perspectives on this topic and that options are available for people to choose from. I knew of several people that took early CPP but that was in the 90s and 2000s. Since that time, I have been led to believe that delaying is the better choice for most. Obviously, there are benefits and drawbacks to either choice. From a longevity perspective my aunts lived to or are in their late 90s and uncles into their late 80s early 90s on both sides of the family. One of my aunts turns 100 this year. I do have the benefit of being much younger than my siblings. If they start expiring in their 70s, I may start my CPP as early as I can and go out in a blaze of glory. 

In the interim I will focus on continued savings and investment returns and let CPP do its thing. Perhaps I need to take a look at the performance of DIY portfolio in comparison to my DC plans. I hadn't paid close attention as my own investments are almost all equity where my DC plans have a larger bond/fixed income weighting. The 2022 returns should be interesting as I may see that my pension's outperform my own portfolio. Another point of consideration is the solvency of one's workplace pensions.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

There is to a certain extent, a similar decision to be made for OAS. I took mine at 65. Spouse has delayed hers until 70.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

londoncalling said:


> The monthly difference is less than $300 a month between 62 and 65 which isn't going determine whether I eat cat food or caviar as a senior.


So just trying to put this CPP gain in perspective with some random numbers, assuming a person currently makes minimum max CPP earnings of ~$60k year (~$40k take home) and saved of $5k of that and currently has $500k in RRSP holdings.

So for each additional year you continue to work (in the 60-65 age range),

Add $5K to investments (saved money)
Add $360 to CPP yearly output (via maxed contributions)
Add 7.2% (~$850) to CPP yearly output (i.e. no early penalty)
Add $50k (estimated income if retired) as you are one year older now
RRSP real return, a conservative 3% or $15k

So you gain of $70k in savings and get $1210 a year extra CPP output.
Those numbers look about right?


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I will take mine ASAP. My father passed away at 59 and both my grandfathers also died at 59 or 60 (though both of them drank heavily and smoked). They worked their whole lives and never got to retire.

Even if I was fortunate to make it to 70, I feel like the additional money wouldn't really matter by then.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The CPPIB says there is no actuarial difference between taking the CPP benefit at age 60 or 65 or 70. You collect more benefits or bigger payments.....either way.

But that calculation is on an individual to individual basis, as I understand it to be.

What they don't say is how the fund liability is affected by delaying the benefit from age 60-70 or an age in between the milestone markers.

How many people pass away who will never collect their benefits, and would that not represent a reduction in liability for the fund ?

The death benefit is a piddly $2500, and there is some survivor or "top up" benefit, but it is a relatively small amount.

I note that the government had some years to study the effects of people delaying the CPP .before introducing delaying the OAS as well.

I guess the question is.......do the actuarial calculations include the people who would pass away and lose their benefit ?

Would they have introduced delaying the OAS if it would cost them more in benefits overall ?

It is interesting people shun annuities because they don't want to hand over money to the provider and then die before they receive much benefit.

And yet, the same people may find it attractive to delay the CPP or OAS, which has the same risk factor.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The mortality tables show death begins to ramp up at age 55 and rises rapidly after age 70.

In 2020, about 307,000 people passed away and 43,000 of them were between the ages of 60 and 70.

If the "payback" period for taking the pension early is age 84......the number climbs to about 150,000 or 50% of all deaths in a year.






Deaths, by age group and sex


Number and percentage of deaths, by age group, sex, and place of residence, 1991 to most recent year.




www150.statcan.gc.ca


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

londoncalling said:


> @TomB16 and @cainvest
> 
> Thanks for your questions.
> 
> ...


 ... not necessarily unless they actually had the chance to elect the cv and even then with lower rates from the reality of yester-year, they could end up with a lower cv when those who determine your cv payout decide to use the higher rates of the year you're getting it. Ie. they will play around with the rates that's in the best interest of the pooled (employer's) pension, not the individual (employee) pension.



> Although I share your sentiment Tom that our own interest is the best reason to guide our economic destination, many lack the knowledge that needs to accompany that journey. * Perhaps I am biased as a former plan trustee who put a lot of faith in myself, my fellow trustees, and actuary and to a lesser extent the pension consultant. * I did not have a lot of faith in our investment fund managers, who were great people, with a lot of knowledge in their fields be it fixed income, equities, real estate or alternative investments.  I always felt their larger agenda was wanting us to increase our allocation to their products (which of course it was).


 ... so what's the difference between the actuary and a pension consultant for you/your company? I'm curious.

As for not having faith in your investment fund managers, I wouldn't blame you as I'm sure they can't control the markets either.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... not necessarily unless they actually had the chance to elect the cv and even then with lower rates from the reality of yester-year, they could end up with a lower cv when those who determine your cv payout decide to use the higher rates of the year you're getting it. Ie. they will play around with the rates that's in the best interest of the pooled (employer's) pension, not the individual (employee) pension.
> 
> ... so what's the difference between the actuary and a pension consultant for you/your company? I'm curious.
> 
> As for not having faith in your investment fund managers, I wouldn't blame you as I'm sure they can't control the markets either.


You are correct that in that the CV you get is what you get and that the primary goal of the fund is the funds stability and not the individual's payout for early withdrawal. I have learned that there are also options (although limited) plans can utilize in the CV calculation, but they cannot cherry pick the formula nor change them regularly. The changes must be approved by the pension regulator.

For clarification between the pension consultant and the actuary for the plan that I was a trustee. Our actuary did more work on legal reporting, solvency ratios, fund liability projections when increases were to payout were contemplated, assisted the auditor during annual audits, determined if legislative changes would require changes to the fund policy and reporting to the pension regulator. The pension consultant reviewed fund performance, kept the fund managers in check both in their performance and reporting, fund asset allocation, sought new fund managers on the rare occasion we wanted to swap a fund or manager, education conferences and workshops. Both gave advisement on governance matters and policy review.


----------



## jlunfirst (1 mo ago)

Well, my mortality if my family background in CAnada, is an indicator and my health/level of fitness, most likely I will live at least into my 80's. My partner died @77 and this is someone who did bicycle for over last 30 yrs. He cycled across Canada on 2 separate trips. We didn't have a car. He did have a heart stent just 1 yr. before. He delayed CPP until 70 and did have good work private pension.

So I plan to take OAS @65 and defer my pension until 71. I am currently getting survivor's CPP while working full-time. When I get my own CPP it *isn't survivor plus mine. *See info on in govn' web site. My CPP will combine mine plus very tiny survivor. The full survivor (which isn't that much) payment drops off at that time.

The main reason for deferring my CPP is I need drawdown on RRSP earlier before 70.

So predicting one's mortality is a risk. Even without survivor CPP, I will get OAS clawback.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

My spouse deferred OAS until 70 since it would all be clawed back.

We plan to have a complete tax review in 12 months…including spousal loans and pension splitting. Spouse will be 70, I will be forced to bring RSP money into income. Same for spouse’s RSP inside the following 18 months.

It will be time for some professional advice and direction that can hopefully carry us forward for anther ten years.


----------



## jlunfirst (1 mo ago)

ian said:


> My spouse deferred OAS until 70 since it would all be clawed back.
> 
> We plan to have a complete tax review in 12 months…including spousal loans and pension splitting. Spouse will be 70, I will be forced to bring RSP money into income. Same for spouse’s RSP inside the following 18 months.
> 
> It will be time for some professional advice and direction that can hopefully carry us forward for anther ten years.


I did have a financial advisor give me some advice and calculations re limited options. It's very different when it's for single folks, no pension splitting,etc. from a tax efficiency planning perspective. 

It's challenging to think of deaccumulation vs. full-on saving. For single folks, it's consoling oneself that though there will be tax for RRSP withdrawals, it can be sluffed over into TSFAs or non-registered account.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

There are not many tax options for reducing taxes as a married person. Pension splitting helps us, but only to a limited degree.

By far the best tax for us has been spousal loans in the years leading up to retirement. We were fortunate enough to lock in when the prescribed rate was 1 percent.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

cainvest said:


> So just trying to put this CPP gain in perspective with some random numbers, assuming a person currently makes minimum max CPP earnings of ~$60k year (~$40k take home) and saved of $5k of that and currently has $500k in RRSP holdings.
> 
> So for each additional year you continue to work (in the 60-65 age range),
> 
> ...


sorry @cainvest I totally missed this post. Your numbers look right. I think by the time I hit 60 I will be wanting to work part time so I may not hit max. Nonetheless, the data is useful and the point well taken. I have also considered stopping work and drawing on RRSP which would adjust the numbers somewhat. A lot can happen between now and then so for the time being this is more a mental exercise and subject to change for a variety of reasons.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

londoncalling said:


> A lot can happen between now and then so for the time being this is more a mental exercise and subject to change for a variety of reasons.


For sure lots can change, a moving target pushed by many variables as we've all seen over the past 3 years. As long as we all have the best data to decide with going forward that is the best we can do without a real working crystal ball.


----------

