my dividend is already 120K/year still working...

That makes sense

Makes sense …. Hoping you have a miracle 👍

I agree with you.

Its really only a matter if somebody 'needs' to take it at 60 due to financial circumstances. Otherwise hang on and delay till 70.

​@nelacostabianco Wait until 65. I won't wait another day. Waiting until 70 gives you a terrific boost, But as the money starts you are entering your slow go years. Dying wealthy and not living while you could enjoy life makes zero sense. The average life expectancy is 86 or 87. So you get more money when you reach your No Go years????

@garth217 Exactly what I'm trying to understand... dying wealthy vs. living poor in the meantime.

@@garth217 That's the point this video misses entirely. There is a lot more involved in coming up with a retirement strategy then just looking at numbers.

@@garth217 You guys should watch the video again and then watch any number of Adam's videos that include laddered income. This video showed that EVERY year was more after tax income by delaying. Add in proper tax planning and laddered income (all of which Adam covers) and you'll have more money in prime retirement years. The only reason to take it earlier is absolutely need the income or guaranteed shorter life span.

Really

yep, I agree, I see the benefit of delaying but 65 is my max.

Absolutely, the bank is looking out for their best interest and not yours. They know if you defer CPP you will reduce your RRSP (and any other investments) more rapidly.

I suspect, unless you have a very healthy TFSA, the option to delay CPP is quite limited. Everyone’s scenario is unique but I can’t imagine trying to live off of just OAS and GIS. That doesn’t sound sustainable.

No doubt there is an emotional component to financial planning, but I think letting one’s emotions sway a prudent financial decision is counterproductive. Shouldn’t the security of a continuous higher net income provide the resilience a retiree seeks? I believe the math should be the ultimate driver for the decision making process.

Do you expect to die that young? Why? If instead you live to 90 wouldn’t it be better to have a more stable inflation indexed income source? Absolutely, if one has had cancer, or another serious medical condition, or a consistent family history of reduced longevity then deferring is not at all in their best interest. But, if there is no sound reason to predict an early demise it doesn’t make sense ( on its own ) to take CPP early. I think of it this way. I could possibly die before even turning 60. Since that possibility exists shouldn’t I just retire now? I don’t think so. I think the appropriate course of action is to use family history and statistics (which show Canadians who reach age 60 are likely to reach at least age 80) to drive the decisions around CPP, OAS, RRSP meltdown. Speculating that I might be an anomaly, in terms of statistics, is not how I plan to create my retirement plan.

Note You could get hit by a bus tomorrow!

@@garth217 if everyone thought like this we wouldn’t go to work on Monday. It’s a terrible equation to base long term decisions on what ifs.

@@James_48 Do you know many seniors over 90 or even 85 ? I do and NONE of them would benefit from that extra CPP. Their kids will though :)

@@martik778if I make it that long, and both my parents made it to 89, unlike my parents I will be spending my money in retirement to travel and enjoy life. By the time I get to 85 I hope all I need is deferred OAS and CPP and a modest amount of remaining savings in my TFSA. It sounds like the perfect outcome to me.

60 always always always do the math find your catch up point

Absolutely

This is the way

470,000 would get you an annuity that pays the same

@@martik778I don’t understand this comment. Are you saying instead of deferring OAS and CPP we should invest almost $500,000 for an annuity payment to get about the same result?

@@James_48 JHM52 asked how much "I would need to give an insurance company at age 71 " - That's the answer

We have 10+ videos on this. Start with this one kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gJyHdapkybPcaaM.html

@@ParallelWealth Will do, thank you!

These videos are informational and not meant to be specific far anyone. If you want your specific numbers to be used then pay the man and he will provide you with a plan.

Most people won’t ever get Maximum CPP… and typically Adam puts his Mr/Mrs KZfaq scenarios @ 75% of max CPP…

I absolutely want to delay CPP until 70. The benefit, not including inflation adjustments, will be more than double than if I take it at 60. I plan to retire at 60 and will be pegged at about 85% of max. I’m inclined to take OAS at 65 but will defer if that scenario makes sense when we get there.

Once you hit 65 you don't have to worry about noncontributing years.

Doug Runchey ran my numbers for a planned retirement at age 60 and the five dropped years did not impact my results very much at all, but I will note that I worked better than average part time jobs from age 18 to 24 so that did give me a bit of a leg up.

With those numbers it sound like virtually all of your CPP will be taxed away and yes, most, if not all, of your OAS will be clawed back. A $300k a year DB pension? I chose the wrong career.😂😂

same here I wont see OAS neither, so shall we delay to 70 for OAS?

@@ybc8495 I would say, in such situations where there is either an outsized DB pension, or a massive RRSP ( > $1.5MM), then the timing of CPP is largely a taxation issue. Different scenarios should be run to predict the optimal average tax rate.

The tax refund repays the initial tax on CPP

Yes, that’s why the CPP “income” was put directly into the RRSP. If the TFSA was used instead then the amount to invest would have been reduced by the amount of tax on the CPP. If I recall correctly, in at least one if the scenarios Adam also maxed out the TFSA contribution as well.

By the year 2025 it is predicted that, for the people that die that year, 68% will be at least age 75, and 45% will be at least 85. By 2050, these numbers rise to 82% and 61%. This implies that someone retiring before 2030 has a much better chance of living to age 85 than not.

Adding in some life insurance to age 70,75 or 80 would really help to take care of the “if I die early” scenario.

I prefer to consider the scenarios where one lives to 90, unless there’s clear evidence to suggest otherwise.

You will have to pay tax on CPP this way.

​@@rb239rtryou always pay tax on cpp. Mute argument

It's 50/50. Less of a benefit to delay OAS. Usually for clawback and income reasons someone will delay OAS

OK. Thanks.

You might get a 15% distribution but you are not getting a 15% total return. Very big difference.

@@James_48 It's all about the monthly income to me. The overall value of my portfolio grows very slowly, if at all. But the the cash flow every month is key to me. I can reinvest what I don't spend. I never have to sell anything. Works for me, not the best for everyone.

Well said @james_48

Why would any educated person take a loss of 36% unless they are in poor health or in a 9:04 dire financial situation? 36% for doing nothing but waiting? It's a no Brainerd!

@@garth217How much tax do you have pay for that 36%? One could be six feet under before he reaches 65. The government is banking on it.

@@garth217One thing I’ve heard is financials aside, the next generation is likely not going to live as long as their parents. Obesity being the driving force. Best guess how long you will live but it is just a guess.

I'm pretty sure the software already takes compounding into account.

Fully accounted for.

If you can get 15% a year investing, why the heck are you working, and why even bother with a financial planning video designed for us mortals!

​@@OptimisticHominid For 2 reasons, one I try to learn what I don't know and it's by keeping an open mind when I watch videos or read article. Two, because I haven't reached my goal yet to replace my salary or double it.... It has been a very difficult journey to learn what I know today after 9 years of testing, learning, made many mistakes that I had to learn from but it was worth it. I'm now very confident in my process, knowledge etc...

I call BS. This means your a better investor than 99.5 of investors on earth. If you were do you really need to watch Adam??

​ @johnwillock6787 lol... think whatever you want... i have nothing to prove to you. And what Adam talks about is fine but I offer another opinion based on my experience. You have mainly 2 kinds of investors the smart money and the dumb money, if you are not the smart one then you are the latter...

@@johnwillock6787 Ditto!