For the most part, Canada's retirement gurus approve of the CD Howe recommendations to bring RRSP and Defined Contribution pensions into parity with the Defined Benefit pensions enjoyed by politicians and civil servants. Further details are in my column today in the Financial Post: Raise RRSP limits to help rebuild losses.
Here, unaltered, is an email from Mercer's actuary Malcolm Hamilton [pictured.] Below is further input from CARP vice president of advocacy Susan Eng and financial educator and author Talbot Stevens. To make clear their authorship, I've once again italicized their words. They begin across from their respective photographs:
The C.D. Howe Backgrounder reminds us that there are many changes to the Income Tax Act that would improve our retirement system. These should not be delayed until every other aspect of the pension system has been addressed.
There is a growing gap between retirement savings in the public sector and retirement savings in the private sector. By my reckoning the average private sector employee has about one third of the savings of the average public sector employee. This is neither healthy nor fair. The gap is partially attributable to the Income Tax Act, which was reformed in the 1990s to level the playing field…yet 20 years later the anti-RRSP bias is evident and growing. A number of recent changes are likely to magnify, not diminish, the differences (phased retirement and income splitting to name two).
If there is a justification for allowing federal public servants to participate in a pension plan worth 34% of pay while restricting 80% of the private sector (those without DB pensions) to RRSPs with an 18% limit, I have yet to see it and can't imagine what it would be. Personally, I don't think that people need to save 34% of pay, but a country that can afford rich pensions for federal employees should be prepared to let others decide for themselves whether they want to contribute 34% of pay to an RRSP so they can retire in their 50s with large, safe, indexed pensions.
Finally, while fixing the Income Tax Act is undeniably important, no one should imagine that this is all we need to do. Middle class Canadians don't need higher RRSP or pension limits – they already have more RRSP room than money. They need better advice about managing their debts and setting reasonable retirement goals. They need plans with smart default options and low fees, so even the disinterested make good decisions. Our system is unlikely to spontaneously heal itself. We need a catalyst.
Talbot Stevens: "hard to argue against fairness"
London-based financial educator Talbot Stevens — author of Financial Freedom Without Sacrifice, pictured right — also strongly supports the recommendations:
I completely agree with William's key suggestions for improving the retirement savings system. I have always felt it would be more equitable and effective for an increase in the RRSP contribution ratio of income, instead of higher absolute limits (as IFIC has lobbied for). It's hard to argue against fairness, and as Mr. Robson points out, if the pension savings for federal public servants equates to 34% of income, then the rest of Canadians should be allowed to save tax-sheltered at the same level.
Of course the maximums would have to be adjusted to reflect the new contribution ratio. The 2009 limit of $21,000 is 18% of the a little less than the start of the top 2009 federal tax bracket of $126,264 ($21,000 = .92 x $126,264 x 18%). With a 30% contribution ratio of income, the 2009 limit should be closer to $35,000 (.92 x 126,264 x 30% = $34,850).
The approach of simply increasing contribution limits only benefits the highest income savers, while approach of increasing the contribution ratio helps all income levels. Those who would benefit the most are those middle-income savers who maximize their annual contributions, or those who could catch up with a windfall such as an inheritance. Under the 18% system, someone earning $50,000 can only contribute (or accumulate room of) $9,000 a year. With a 30% contribution ratio, they could contribute $15,000 a year.
I also agree with the need to increase the eligibility age for RRSPs to better reflect the longer and increasing lifespans. More flexibility is needed to deal with the new retirement era where full-time work stops earlier, transitions through part-time or ad hoc semi-retirement, and lasts longer than ever.
I would also add that the budgets always talk about how much a new program or change will "cost" in terms of tax revenue. This is a myopic perspective that doesn't reflect the deferral of revenue as opposed to absolute loss or "cost". In addition, the country and thus the government benefits from creating self-sufficient behaviours like retirement savings to reduce future demands on senior support programs while also creating Canadians with more financial stability to better withstand tough economic times.
CARP's Eng: Proposals "nice" but still need for comprehensive reform
CARP's vice president of advocacy Susan Eng [pictured left] is also supportive but still thinks the country needs more than tweaks but "comprehensive reform" like CARP's own proposal for a Universal Pension Plan.
Overall, all the proposed changes are nice to have but they continue to ignore the need for comprehensive pension reform. Tinkering around the edges is no substitute but people will be encouraged that the public scrutiny on retirement insecurity has prompted good ideas to come forward. I just hope they do not "exhaust the field" leaving the major gaps unfilled.
On bumping the annual and lifetime RRSP contribution limits:
Of course the higher annual limits will help the better paid among us. And the even better option is the increase in the lifetime limit for people who can afford to set aside more later in their career – comparable to the "past service contributions" available to those with workplace pensions. And the Pension Adjustment match is also a good idea.
However, the importance of workplace pensions is that the there is a professionally managed fund, risk is spread among a larger group and it can better withstand market crashes. And most important, employer contributions either matching or in the public service, significantly greater than the employee contribution. So while it would be nice if we could all afford to use the tax deferral room provided by pension adjustments and such, the reality is that in the public service pensions, the employer uses our tax dollars to fill that room.
That's why CARP calls for a universal pension plan to allow people to better match the opportunities now available to the public service. A large professional managed fund that spreads the risk and lowers the investment costs can provide better returns than average people managing their own funds. Giving people more tax deferral room to do more of the same does not go far enough to bridge that gap in returns and ultimately our retirement security.
On moving the RRIF threshold from 71 to 73.
That would be welcome but it does not help people already age 73. CARP advocates a two year moratorium on all RRIF withdrawals and further has always opposed the RRIF system altogether. RRSPs were promoted on the basis that they would help people save for retirement because of the tax deferral and that taxes would be paid at lower rates when people retired. Forcing people to withdraw their savings and pay taxes on them when it was the least opportune time was not part of the bargain.
Reminder of RRSP live blog Friday morning
This is Jon again. A reminder that tax-assisted pensions, retirement, TFSAs and RRSPs are all fair game for a live blog I'm doing for the Post on Friday morning (Feb. 12), from 10 am to
11:30 am. Details here. Judging by the comments on the original Robson post earlier Thursday, it could be a lively session.
–62–

Source The Wealthy Boomer : Retirement