Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this10:29 am
September 11, 2013
Offline
So if survivor had opted for early reduced cpp they might get more on death of spouse due to more "room" available before hitting max cpp limit?
11:15 am
January 25, 2024
Offline
Bill said
My approach would be grab government money as soon as it's available, save your own pile as much as possible, given that an intact Canada as presently constituted is hardly assured in the future.
Cannot agree. But it all depends on ones circumstances...
If somebody has a 'pile of money' in RRSP/RRIF then that 'nest' should be emptied as much as possible as if you are gone with balance left, government will gladly take big chunk of leftovers.
11:25 am
April 6, 2013
Offline
Bill said
So if survivor had opted for early reduced cpp they might get more on death of spouse due to more "room" available before hitting max cpp limit?
Apparently, the exact calculations are not like that and taking one's own CPP earlier or later does not affect how much "room" is available for a survivor's pension. Imagine that!
In Globe & Mail (March 12, 2024): A pension expert explains ‘the truths’ about combined CPP and survivor benefits, Doug Runchey explained it is the "calculated retirement pension" that is used in the survivor pension calculation and not the actual retirement pension is collecting:
• When calculating a combined benefit, the “maximum” is applied against the “calculated retirement pension” (before applying the age-adjustment factor if you take your CPP earlier or later than 65). That means taking your CPP earlier than 65 does not mean you can receive a higher survivor’s pension before you hit the max. Nor does it mean you will receive a lower survivor’s pension if you take your CPP later than 65.
Truly, Alice in Wonderland situation! The maximum is not actually a maximum! One may not get to the maximum even though one won't be over the maximum. One may still get more even though it will put one over the maximum!
11:57 am
November 18, 2017
Offline
Kirk: All those immigrants, no matter who pays their bills, still have to spend money to survive. As such, they drive conomic growth AND inflation, depending on how they are managed.
Inflation: For an extended period, productivity was slashed by the large number of people unable to work, or find work, due to the pandemic. That means less of everything to go around, and debt accumulating everywhere. (The alternative of the government not throwing in money to keep the economy working at all would be a massive recession!) I have bemoaned the fact that political parties did not regularly remind everyone that those debts were hanging over them.
Everyone: I chose to take my pension as soon as possible, because my income is already too low to pay tax, thanks to my TFSA portfolio and negligible RRIF benefit. That also protects me from the possibility that future calculations may change.
One should look at one's financial situation and consider moving RRSP assets into TFSAs to reduce retirement income.
RetirEd
5:10 pm
September 11, 2013
Offline
Thanks, Norman1. Sounds like for survivor cpp purposes maximum is calculated based on cpp entitlement at age 65 no matter when you actually chose to take cpp.
CAD, if what you mean by "if you are gone" is being dead, then my other personal policy about not doing anything different in life due to possible tax implications at death would kick in.
5:23 pm
October 27, 2013
Offline
CAD said
If somebody has a 'pile of money' in RRSP/RRIF then that 'nest' should be emptied as much as possible as if you are gone with balance left, government will gladly take big chunk of leftovers.
If there is an opportunity to delay CPP and draw down RRIF/RRSP balances a bit quicker until age 70, by all means do it.
However, I see no productive value in fretting about the tax bill on RRIF collapse upon death. That is a good problem to have. I have never lamented the risk of being in the 32% federal tax bracket because I would have had a good life.
In any case, in many cases, there is a surviving spouse to further deplete the RRIF and at some point at a senior age, e.g. 85-90, it might be worthwhile to accelerate depletion to a non-reg account to spread the tax bill over 5+ years. It makes more sense to me to do that than to accelerate withdrawals at earlier ages.
5:59 pm
December 12, 2009
Offline
Five year GIC ladder should solve the OP's predicament. It's a good time now as the yield curve is quite flat, so you can lock in, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 year rates at relatively the same nominal rate. 
Please write your comments in the forum.