Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
You are making an incorrect assumption here.
Also, we are entering an era where people are going to start to live considerably longer. And the idea of retirement will change from not working to not having to work, but still working to remain active.
And that will mean that much greater numbers of people are going to be accumulating more than $5M (often much more).
This is not an academic debate vs we should look out for ourselves. This is a real issue with real consequences for the economy, and how people save for themselves and their families.
|
Yeah, I'd be interested in hearing your perspective on this because in my experience people are getting to 'retirement age' and then start collecting their CPP and OAS and realize:
"Oh what? I cant retire on this."
Because they may not own their own homes outright or they dont have their own RRSPs or various other retirement savings methods.
And at the same time, part of what sparked the Estate Tax debate is the fact that CPP and OAS are not magic, they are pension funds and the current generation drawing from those funds are drawing significantly more than they contributed, this is what makes most modern pension funds a Ponzi scheme, they constantly have to find new suckers to contribute to pay the old suckers who are collecting.
How about turning the discussion on its head somewhat and coming back at the original point?
How would you feel about, instead of an Estate Tax, a requirement for full financial holdings disclosure and anyone who has a net worth at retirement (65) in excess of $1M becomes ineligible for CPP and OAS regardless of their lifetime contributions?
It would help alleviate strain on the pension fund and yet doesnt adversely effect those who need it.