Thanks for the advice. Thinking I will do the same. Just turned 60 so need to work another 11 years but my job is easy and pays good so why not. Cheers!

As he said you didn't defer it , you didn't retire till 71, so you took it when you retired. At 71 you're lucky to live 10 more years. But you're lucky to have liked your job, most people don't after 35 years.

Who wants to work that late in life no thanks

@@frankcentofanti9317 exactly!!!

Makes you scratch your head, eh? Imagine giving this blanket advice to our clients.

This is a very good point. One must always be aware of tax implications. Your scenario shows how individualized this decision is. Enjoy your retirement!🎉

Some have to take CPP early to avoid getting clawed back on their OAS at age 65

Exactly. Found this video to simplistic in it's message. There are so many things to take into account like taxes, income sources, laddered income, etc. In some cases, you just NEED the money or have a lower life expectancy, so take it early. But if have any of pension, rsp, tfsa, lira, etc, EVERY scenario I've seen of retiring at 60 doing RSP meltdown and collecting OAS at 65 and CPP at 65 or 70 gives MORE AFTER TAX income per year from 60 onwards

@@parkerbohnn I will have to take CPP later, so that I can get as much OAS from 65-70. It will be clawed back once I start getting my CPP.

@@colinmagee5155 100% this is a terrible video for convincing people there is only one way to do it. It is a multidimensional problem and this video only looked at one dimension. There is no one-right answer. The video did not emphasize this but pushed the early narrative only....

My mother sits on millions as she never took out enough. We will pay Over $250,000 taxes on her estate

@@lorettakoch7408 If the RRSP has $1 million when the person dies, the tax will be around half a million dollars.

RRSPs should be rolled over to a family member’s RRSP to defer the taxes.

@@paulb9156 Works if you are married, but not if you are single.

Sweet thank you!

The only thing worse than outliving your money is not enjoying your retirement because you don't live long enough!

The biggest risk is getting all your old age security clawed back and ending up in a nursing home.

No one gets GIS evenb people on welfare make too much money to get GIS.

@@parkerbohnn If you are getting oas clawed back, you are doing ok. And old age care is pretty much a given, So better have a chunky cpp to help pay for it.

@@parkerbohnn Nursing homes are overwhelmingly female occupied, and as a single (divorced) male, I'm statistically more likely to die in my home (paid off) than being neglected, or even abused in a nursing home. I have several young nieces who work in long term care homes, and like so many young women today, openly espouse animosity towards older White males. They claim that their contempt for White men doesn't impact how they do their job, but I'm sure the reality is otherwise.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Indeed, good call. Also, will taking CPP at 60 push you into a higher tax bracket? People should figure out tax implications before taking a government pension early.

@@baconbutty1131 Yep. My brother-in-law had he and his wife both toke CPP and OAS early, while he was still working. Not only did they get less monthly, but then they probably lost almost half of that reduced amount to taxes.

If he was still working under 71, then he should have been contributing to his RRSP to defer his/their taxes. After 65, you can also income-split RRSP withdrawals if it helps with the tax burden. Also, if you collect CPP at 60 and continue working and contributing to CPP, your CPP is topped-up annually to reflect the previous year's contribution. This ends when you turn 65. It could also impact your tax situation, especially if you've neglected contributing to your RRSP or charitable contributions, and get bumped into a higher bracket.

So glad you enjoyed the video!

So glad you enjoyed the video! Happy Birthday

They pay you a fortune not to take it and if you're broke you won't have to worry about getting all your OAS clawed back.

SO glad you enjoyed the video!

Talk to someone about this. This video is wrong.

​@@kevlar111how is it wrong?

@@snowwhite2709 Fundamental math issue- you have to account for inflation with your expected earnings on the $60k, so you have to make much more than 6%. With historical inflation rates of 2-3%, you need to make around 8.5% to stay even, and you cannot have any down years. If you have a -20% year at 65, you run out of money at 80 years. If you have 3 Zero growth years at 61,62,63, you run out of money at 77. If you have one Zero year at 61, you run out of money at 82. At 70, if you have a minus 10% year, while all the others are plus 8.5 %, you run out of money at 84. You have to manage this 60k your entire life and be good at it to match CPP. Meanwhile, defering CPP and spending the 60k in the meantime is way easier to manage, and if you mess up badly, go back to work. How many of us average 8.5%, year after year. Not many. If your health is good or even middling, take the sure bet and defer your CPP.

Do not just follow this advice. You may regret it. You should analyze your specific situation with someone independent who has knowledge about financial planning. This guy didn’t discuss the 42% increase in CPP if you delay until 70. And if you factor in inflation adjustments it will be closer to 50%. And then you can count on that income for the rest of your life. If you die early it won’t matter because you’re dead.

It sure does!

CPP is great. Take it at 60 and keep more of your money in your pocket! And congrats on the early retirement. That's awesome!

Max contribution from 1983 to 2020 as an employee would be 56,675 so you'd get back your portion in about 4 years. 4% dividend is more realistic.

Don't bet it all on one race.

The contributors that are most likely to die in the 10 year catch-up period (delaying to 70) are men, particularly truck drivers, construction and factory workers, which is, IMHO, the reason for the government pushing this rationalization. This "wait until 70" push with the perverse +0.7% incentive (early withdrawal penalty having recently been increased from 0.5% to 0.6% to disincentivize PLEBS "early retirement") to not take what should be yours (I didn't agree to this plan) is a government pushed strategy to transfer "male wealth" to temporarily help offset the increasing cost of maintaining retired women as the number of female CPP recipients is currently around 250K higher (plus 800K more female "survivor" pensions) than males and increasing. Also, I suspect that the average male CPP pension is currently much higher than the average female CPP pension, further incentivizing government to push "wait until 70". Point being, men have different considerations than women when deciding what is the best retirement age for you.

No you don't have it wrong, take the CPP and OAS and let your money grow or take out just what you need to supplement your pensions.

If you are worried about OAS clawbacks, you don't need to watch videos like this since your annual *retirement* income exceeds $82,000!

@@awebuser5914 I want what I am entitled to and not penalized for investing wisely over the years. Watching videos like this keeps me informed of my options. Everybody should do the same. No need to "dummy-up" just because one can afford it.

If you are not working, or working PT, you likely are using your savings to supplement your income if you wait till 65.

And what is live to 90? If you plan on dying early, will you deplete your own savings quickly?

When you are 90+ _you don't spend money_ in any meaningful way.

@@awebuser5914 Not that I said anything about money but since you brought it up... Why is the number one worry for pensioners "running out of money" if they won't need it? I don't know about you but personally I'd rather have a decent secure income until I die than not. But that's just me.

@@ddavidson5 The "running out of money" thing is extremely rare and really for those with absolutely no illiquid assets prior to retirement (house, cottage, etc.) The vast majority of retirees will have a house and other assets and those can be leveraged for income or completely liquidated, if needed. The bottom line is that if you "run out of money" post-retirement, there was obviously a huge problem with your retirement savings to begin with and you really should not have retired when you did, or you did not budget in any realistic manner and overspent. Painful, but true...

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j61yh6Zzrbarnps.html

Again, you can take it whenever you want. But deferring CPP means you're funding that difference. So just run the numbers.

@@AngeloMantzios Agreed you miss the first five years but if you live long enough you more than make it back. If you take $1200 at age 65 as opposed to $800 at 60 you will eventually pull way ahead. Also all indexing will be based on the higher amount ie. 2% raise on $1200 is a lot more than 2% on $800. And at age 75 you get a $120 a month raise as opposed to $80 a month not factoring in indexing. And for low income seniors GIS calculations have to be considered. There is no way you can say that for all people deferring is a bad idea. I agree,work the numbers.

@@michaelcooke4492 your whole plan is based on “if”. Isn’t that kind of risky when it comes to money & retirement?

@@AngeloMantzios All retirement planning is based on “if”. People argue “What if I die before 65? I will have left all that money on the table”. A more important question is “What if I live to a very old age? How do I maximize my income?” I would argue if you don’t need it to live and you have no reason to believe you’re going to die young you should wait. But as always get professional advice and crunch the numbers.

No you didn’t. It’s clear you don’t have a financial advisor

Only if you’re an advisor who avoids his clients starting to sell their RSPs at age 60 instead of taking CPP.

If you think high inflation will persist and you have your own savings to bridge the gap to age 70 then why not wait for an inflation adjusted, 42% higher payment. Higher inflation is a strong argument to defer.

Bottom line- it's better to do the math or else talk to a financial adviser.

CPP isn't intended to entirely pay for your retirement. It's only one "leg" of it, the "government pension" leg, along with OAS, and if you qualify, GIS. Another leg is your company pension, if you have one, and the third is personal investments: your real estate, RRSP, TFSA, and non registered investments and bank accounts.

THIS. If one went to the trouble of saving their RSPs they should consider using it. Any opportunity to transfer higher income risk to CPP by deferring makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, taking CPP at 60 means asset managers and advisors are making more money from RSP holdings that aren’t being sold.

Great comment!

Absolutely! I will willingly transfer this risk to CPP at age 70 and fund my retirement with my hard earned savings prior to that.

I can give you some winners at the racetracks around the world.

Reach out to Doug Runchey who can give you a personalized analysis on your CPP options within a few pennies

One must have unite a significant retirement income to trigger substantial OAS clawback.

@@James_48 $90,997 is barely enough to survive on the the greater Toronto area. I don't know anyone who didn't get all their OAS clawed back.

@@parkerbohnn well, I think in terms of couples, where $180k / year in retirement, where in most cases there is a paid for house, should provide a well above average retirement with no, or virtually no OAS clawback. We live in the GTA and expect our combined retirement income - well below $180k, will provide everything we could ever want for in retirement.

@@James_48 You can stuff virtually everything in something that doesn't produce income like an index fund that reinvests dividends or gold bars but most people don't figure it out in time to avoid the clawback.

Not sure I see how adding to your income avoids OAS clawback.

This really all hinges on taking it at 60 not working and living off your savings idk does that make sense ? 6:57

This approach makes a lot of assumptions about returns that are not guaranteed, whereas CPP deferral and inflation protection is guaranteed. The average investor cannot: A) avoid spending their CPP instead of diligently investing it B) avoid touching it before 65 C) actually achieve inflation protected growth to achieve the mathematical outcome you are describing. Some savvy investors might make it happen some small percentage of the time.

ya, but what is the quality of life at 80 and beyond? too many didn't invest in what really matters and that is good health!

@@dawna4185Didn’t you know that 80 is the new 60?!

i work in a nursing home and there are no "new 60 year old's" lol.....@@MC-do4dw

Correct, and the more risk you vacant transfer to CPP and OAS the more stable your retirement income stream can be.

Hi Kris, take a look at our GIS video. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j61yh6Zzrbarnps.html

What about it? Openly, how many people are retiring early to take GIS? But again, if you're not collecting it, it means you're funding the difference.

GIS only kicks in at 65. So if you take CPP at 65, then you're taxable income will be higher than if you take it at 60, and will result in a lower GIS. So for really low income seniors, it would be best to take CPP at 60 if you want to maximize your GIS.

It’s pretty likely that a senior with income low enough to collect GIS will not have any near max CPP.

I think 65 is good compromise vs age 70 because most will slow down in their 70's and won't be spending as much money in their slow-go to no-go years.

I don't disagree with your view on longevity. What is the quality of life for most beyound 75 years of age though? More CPP to pay for public retirement home with payment based on financial resources

@@monex90210 I think it depends on your expectations about retirement life. I'm in a variety of sports clubs and we have members in their 80s and even '90s actively participating and the quality of life is very positive. Statistics would point out or if you've ever been on cruise ships, you'll see more and more older people are spending lots of money, traveling and enjoying life. They need lots of money to fund that. Personally, our expenses since we've retired have gone UP as we retitred and we looked at our pre-retirement expenses and budgeted for 20% INCREASE to fund all the great quality of life activities that we could do for the next 20 plus years. And that includes all kinds of intellectual activities and social fun. This is why I think it's so important that you look at averages as some people will age gracefully and have an incredibly positive retirement that last well into the 90s. I know others that I could say in their 50s that basically are couch potatoes. Mentally and physically . So what about that quality of life? Quality of course is in the eye of the beholder so I don't know what each member here would see as a quality life ahead. But statistics are quite clear you're going to live long and if you take steps, you can certainly improve the quality and length of your life. And from the groups that I've talked to the notion that your expenses will go down in retirement seems to be unfounded. It certainly relates to people that have a big mortgage to pay off but lots of people don't have a mortgage. So when you look at your expenses moving forward, what's going to change? You're going to be spending a lot more on enjoying life and of course you need to consider that you are getting older and we know from statistics that older people spend way more money on health care. So you're going to need a lot of money in the later stages of your life, perhaps even more than in the earlier stages. There's no one size fits all but I would suggest people base their planning on public statistics. The question that probably matters most is having a year by year plan for every year until 90 to see that you (and partner if applicable) are well taken care of financially. But it all comes down to individual perceptions about their future in retirement and how they are going to make sure they have more than sufficient funds to pay the bills for every single year. Assuming you're not going to be sitting and simply watching the grass grow from your rocking chair. There are plenty of tools out there and we certainly have our own to show every single year and every single source of income we anticipate over the lifetime of the plan which extends until age 90. Lots of good times ahead. Emotionally, psychologically and also financially.

@@martik778 as I see it, one point of maximizing CPP by deferring to age 70 is to ensure I have a higher, guaranteed, indexed to inflation payment that I don’t have to manage. It’ll be done for me. In the event I need private healthcare assistance I’ll be in a better position.

Lol

Watch the video again. You are paying $60K out of your pocket for foregoing to 65.

@@monex90210 No you're not. Some idiot on the internet that failed math class saying doesn't make it true. If you move $60K from one side of the equation then you have to subtract it on the other side.. that's simple algebra. Taking it early means you now have to come up with an extra $60K to pay your expenses between 65 and 74.

Lol

Lol if you need it take it at 60. If you do t need it take it at 60 and invest it. Average age of death is 82. Sure if you take it at 70 and live to 119 you get way more than taking it at 60 but….

No. You don’t take it for the sake of investing it. There many examples from many channels that CLEARLY outline this.

I agree, not great advice. It’s very tip of the iceberg. Quite a lot of simpletons in this thread

⁠@@HuplesCatthat "average age of death is 82" statistic you are using is from birth. It's higher for those that have already reached their 60s because they avoided dying at a younger age.

Good for you

out live the spouse problem solved

between zero and 36% NOT 60%

This is an example of why people need to work with financial planners and not watch youtube videos

Exactly

Agreed but one factor you can’t get ignore and none of us can control is our check our date. I know 80-90 yo’s who are fairly healthy even thru stroke and others (much) younger coping with serious illness. Even if a chronic illness will prob necessitate the need for added income earlier. This stat is rising yearly with younger gen as is perm layoff rates due to automation and changes in our world.

Family and friends parents all died between the age if 55 and 70, I'm not worried about looking at break evens in the 80s.