Tag Archives: Quebec Pension Plan

Should the age of CPP/OAS eligibility be raised?

Results from the 2016 census show that there are now 5.9 million Canadian seniors, compared to 5.8 million Canadians age 14 and under. This is due to the historic increase in the number of people over 65 — a jump of 20% since 2011 and a significantly greater increase than the five percent growth experienced by the population as a whole. This rapid pace of aging carries profound implications for everything from pension plans to health care, the labour market and social services.

“The reason is basically that the population has been aging in Canada for a number of years now and the fertility level is fairly low, below replacement levels,” Andre Lebel, a demographer with Statistics Canada told Global News. Lebel also projects that because over the next 16 years, the rest of the baby boom will become senior citizens, the proportion of seniors will rise to 23 per cent.

Therefore, it is not surprising that a new study from the C.D. Howe Institute proposes that the age of eligibility (AOE) for CPP/QPP, Old Age Security (OAS) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) benefits should be re-visited. The AOE is the earliest age at which an individual is permitted to receive a full (unreduced) pension from the government.

Other countries with aging populations are raising the AOE for social security benefits. These include Finland, Sweden, Norway, Poland and the United Kingdom. In 2012, then Prime Minister Steven Harper announced plans to increase the AOE for OAS and GIS from 65 to 67 between 2023 and 2029. However, Trudeau reversed this very unpopular legislation (leaving the AOE at 65) in the 2016 budget.

In their report Greener Pastures: Resetting the age of eligibility for Social Security based on actuarial science, authors Robert Brown and Shantel Aris say their goal is to introduce an “evidence-based” analysis that can be used impartially to adjust the AOE for Canada’s social security system based on actuarial logic, not political whims.

However, they do not argue that current systems and reform plans are unsustainable. In fact, increasing life expectancy and increasing aged-dependency ratios are consistent with the assumptions behind CPP/QPP actuarial valuations. However, they suggest that if there are relatively painless ways to manage increasing costs to the programs, then they are worthy of public debate.

Their calculations assume that Canadians will spend up to 34% of their life in retirement, resulting in recommendations for a new AOE of 66 (phased-in beginning in 2013 and achieved by 2025) that would then be constant until 2048 when the AOE would shift to age 67 over two years.

Brown and Avis believe these shifts would soften the rate of increase in the Old Age Dependency Ratio, bring lower OAS/GIS costs and lower required contribution rates for the CPP (both in tier 1 and the new tier 2). This, in turn, would result in equity in financing retirement across generations and a higher probability of sustainability of these systems.

However they do acknowledge that there are some important issues that would arise if the proposed AOE framework is adopted. One of these issues is the fact that raising the AOE is regressive. For example, if your life expectancy at retirement is five years, and the AOE is raised by one year, then that is a 20% loss in benefits. If your life expectancy at retirement is 20 years, then the one year shift in the AOE is only a five percent benefit reduction.

People with higher income and wealth tend to live longer, so the impact of raising the AOE will be greater on lower-income workers than on higher-income workers. Access to social assistance benefits would be needed to mitigate this loss. The study suggests that it would be easy to mitigate the small regressive element in the shift of AOS by reforming the OAS/GIS clawback as the AOE starts to rise.

The report concludes that having partial immunization of the OAS/GIS and CPP/QPP from increases in life expectancy is  and logical and would help Canada to achieve five attractive goals with respect to our social security system:

  • Increase the probability of it’s sustainability.
  • Increase the credibility of this sustainability with the Canadian public.
  • Enhance inter-generational equity.
  • Lower the overall costs of social security; and
  • Create a nudge for workers to stay in the labour force for a little longer .

It remains to be seen if or when the C.D. Howe proposals regarding changes to the AOE for public pension plans will make it on to the “To Do” list of the current or future federal governments.

Written by Sheryl Smolkin
Sheryl Smolkin LLB., LLM is a retired pension lawyer and President of Sheryl Smolkin & Associates Ltd. For over a decade, she has enjoyed a successful encore career as a freelance writer specializing in retirement, employee benefits and workplace issues. Sheryl and her husband Joel are empty-nesters, residing in Toronto with their cockapoo Rufus.

Public pensions not enough, most Canadians say

By Sheryl Smolkin

While most (94%) Canadians aged 55 to 75 ‘agree’ that they would ‘like to have guaranteed income for life’ when they retire, a new Ipsos poll* conducted on behalf of RBC Insurance finds that just two in ten (22%) Canadians agree that ‘Canadian public pension plans (such as CPP/QPP/OAS) will provide enough retirement income’ for them. In fact, most (78%) disagree that these pension plans will suffice.

It’s no surprise then that six in ten ‘agree’ that they’re ‘worried about outliving their retirement savings’, while four in ten ‘disagree’ that they’re worried. Women (66%) are considerably more likely than men (50%) to be worried about outliving their savings, as are those aged 55 to 64 (62%) compared to those aged 65 to 75 (52%).

Atlantic Canadians (67%) are most worried about outliving their retirement savings, followed by those in Ontario (63%), Alberta (60%), Quebec (59%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (58%) and finally British Columbia (41%).

One way of supplementing retirement income is through the use of an annuity, but many Canadians aged 55 to 75 appear in the dark about what an annuity is and how it might help them. In fact, six in ten say ‘that they ‘don’t know much about annuities’, while four in ten disagree that they lack knowledge in this area.

Women (71%) are significantly more likely than men (51%) to say they don’t know much about annuities, as are those aged 55 to 64 (66%) compared to those aged 65 to 75 (55%). Albertans (75%) are most likely to admit they don’t know much about annuities, followed by those living in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (71%).

Responses to this quiz also confirm that many Canadians lack fundamental knowledge about annuities. Just 55% of Canadians were able to answer more than half of the questions correctly, and only 6% got all six questions right. British Columbians (62%) were most likely to pass the test, followed by those in Quebec (57%), Ontario (54%), Atlantic Canada (53%), Alberta (52%) and finally Saskatchewan and Manitoba (49%).

  • Just four in ten believe that it is true that they need a licensed insurance advisor to buy an annuity. In contrast, six in ten believe this is false – when in fact, it is true.
  • Seven in ten correctly believe it’s true that there are potential tax savings to investing in annuities, while 29% incorrectly believe this to be false.
  • Half incorrectly believe it’s true that annuities last for a specific period of time, while the other half believes this is false, which is the correct answer.
  • Seven in ten correctly believe it’s true that annuities can provide guaranteed income for life, while three in ten incorrectly believe this to be false.
  • Half think it’s true that annuities are not a good investment during low interest rate environments, while the other half correctly believes this to be false.
  • Three quarters correctly believe it’s true that they can invest in an annuity using their RRSP and/or RRIF savings, while 27% incorrectly think this is false.

Despite the majority being uneasy about their retirement savings, just one in three agrees that they are exploring or considering annuities as part of their retirement plan, while most (65%) are not. One quarter say they have an annuity.

Members of the Saskatchewan Pension Plan can opt at retirement to receive an annuity payable for life. Life only, refund and joint survivor annuities are available.

*These are some of the findings of an Ipsos poll conducted between August 7 to 14, 2015 on behalf of RBC Insurance. For this survey, a sample of 1,000 Canadians aged 55 to 75 from Ipsos’ Canadian online panel was interviewed online.

Are Canadians saving enough for retirement?

By Sheryl Smolkin

Are Canadians saving enough for retirement? It depends who you ask.

A BMO survey conducted in early 2014 revealed that only 43% of Canadians planned to make RRSP contributions by the March 1st deadline, down from 50% the previous year. An October 2014 study from the Conference Board of Canada reports that almost four in 10 Canadians are not saving and nearly 20% of respondents said they will never retire.

Yet a 2015 study of 12,000 Canadian households conducted by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. says that four out of every five of the nation’s households are on track to maintain their standard of living in retirement. The research reveals that most of the unprepared households belong to one of two groups of middle to high-income households:

  • Those who do not contribute enough to their defined contribution (DC) pension plans or group, and
  • Those who do not have access to an employer-sponsored plan and have below average personal savings.

The McKinsey study suggests that since the retirement savings challenge is quite narrow, the best way to address it should be an approach targeted to these groups that is balanced and maintains the fairness of the system for all Canadian households.

And now, Malcolm Hamilton, a Senior Fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute and a former Partner with Mercer has weighed in on the issue with his commentary Do Canadians Save Too Little?

Hamilton agrees with the McKinsey research that Canadians are reasonably well-prepared for retirement. Most save more than the five percent household savings rate. Most can retire comfortably on less than the traditional 70% retirement target. Furthermore, the size of the group that appears to be “at risk” cannot be accurately determined nor can the attributes of its members be usefully described.

He notes that a couple can live comfortably after retirement despite a reduction in income of more than 30% for several reasons:

  • They no longer need to save for retirement.
  • They no longer contribute to CPP and EI.
  • One of their largest pre-retirement expenses – supporting children – ends.
  • During their working lives the couple acquires non-financial assets like the family home, cars, furniture, art and jewelry. Some can be turned into a stream of income. Some cannot. But they do not need to budget to re-acquire these items during retirement.
  • Finally, any tolerable reduction in post-retirement income is amplified by a disproportionate reduction in income tax due to the progressive nature of our tax system and special tax breaks reserved for seniors.

As studies of our retirement system become more sophisticated, Hamilton thinks we should focus more on solutions for individuals who are not saving enough as opposed to a blanket approach that will impact everyone

So how can we fill the “gaps” identified by these studies?

Hamilton is not a big fan of an enhanced Canada or Quebec Pension plan. He agrees that CPP/QPP are effective ways to increase the post-retirement incomes, and to reduce the pre-retirement incomes, of all working Canadians.

However, he says they are ineffective ways to increase the post-retirement incomes of hard-to-identify minorities who are thought to be saving too little. “Their strength is their reach – they can efficiently move everyone to a common goal,” Hamilton says. “But what if there is no common goal? What if there are only individual goals dictated by personal circumstances and priorities?”

The report concludes that because gross replacement targets are unreliable measures of retirement income adequacy due to the diversity of our population, programs like the CPP/QPP can go only so far in addressing our retirement needs. They can establish a lowest common denominator – a replacement target that all Canadians should strive to equal or exceed.

“Beyond that, we need better-targeted programs – programs that are better able to recognize and address our individual needs,” Hamilton says.