Are you saving enough for retirement?

[Reggie28]

Originally Posted by Brupal

The average Canadian credit card debt for Q3 2025 is $22,321, with the average debt per customer at $4,652. Debt levels vary significantly by age, with the 46-55 age group having the highest average debt at $34,987 and the 18-25 age group at $8,635.
Overall Average (Q3 2025): The average credit card balance per Canadian is reported as $4,652. Another source gives a figure of $22,321 for the average debt across all Canadians in Q3 2025.
Average by Age Group (Q3 2025):
18-25: $8,635
26-35: $17,603
36-45: $27,263
46-55: $34,987
56-65: $29,772
65+: $15,121

Looks like a LOT of people could use that first $30k to slap down on the good old Visa

I think the $22,321 number is consumer debt, which is basically all debt excluding mortgages.

I also believe the $4652 credit card number is just the current balance on your cards, when I look at my credit report, my credit card balance is listed as debt (which it is), however it is automatically paid every month.

Like anything, the devil is in the details, personally I have a home loan that is structured as a line of credit and an investment loan that is classified as a personal loan. My contribution to “consumer” debt may be (home loan+investment loan+current credit card balance), when each of those debts are being used to my advantage and are not truly what I would consider consumer debt.

AI overview

Consumer debt in Canada refers to all money owed by individuals, including credit cards, auto loans, and personal loans, but typically excluding mortgages. As of late 2025, total consumer debt was around $2.6 trillion, with significant portions including mortgages and non-mortgage debts like credit cards and car loans. The recent increases are partly due to high inflation and the need for financing for essential goods and services.

In the third quarter of 2025, Canadian consumer debt reached a record $2.6 trillion, a 4.1% increase from the previous year, primarily driven by a rise in mortgage balances. Average non-mortgage debt per consumer was around $22,147 in Q2 2025, while household credit market debt approached $3.1 trillion. Canadians' top financial priority for 2025 was paying down debt, though some subgroups saw increased credit card spending.

[Fuzz]

Ya, it would make sense something like an auto loan would make a big chunk of that for a lot of people. I assume those values aren't taking into account the asset value (not that vehicles are usually great assets).

[malcolmk14]

We bought a $73k car in April and put about $17k of it on a personal line of credit. Paid the rest cash. So I guess on paper we have $17k of consumer debt but it doesn't feel like it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

We bought a $73k car in April and put about $17k of it on a personal line of credit. Paid the rest cash. So I guess on paper we have $17k of consumer debt but it doesn't feel like it.

$73K car? And here I thought you said that Teachers dont make enough money??

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by Locke

$73K car? And here I thought you said that Teachers dont make enough money??

Haha, I'm not the money maker in my house. Also teachers make way too much.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Locke

$73K car? And here I thought you said that Teachers dont make enough money??

I mean $73k is probably just a base Civic these days.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by V

Also, I find it incredibly hard to believe that the average 46-55 debt holder has 35k in credit card debt. That would be absolutely soul crushing.

As others have mentioned it's not just credit card debt, but I don't even understand how this is calculated. I had $6000 of cc debt this morning when I looked and I paid it (that was just a result of me paying home insurance on two houses for a year up front). So do I have $6k in credit card debt, or do I have $0? This happens every month to some degree, albeit not to the tune of $6000.

Originally Posted by kevman

I mean $73k is probably just a base Civic these days.

I know this was a joke but the base Civic is still like 31k which is at this point just a phenomenal price, IMO... like you can get a hybrid civic hatchback for under $40,000 and having now driven the current gen civic hatch for months, I don't know what else you could reasonably ask for in a practical modern car. It's comfortable, downright nice inside, tons of space with the seats folded... people who aren't car aficionados and are just getting something to get them around, I don't know why you'd buy anything else.

[Strange Brew]

If you're planning to use an inheritance to fund living expenses for your retirement, you also might want to understand who is counting on an inheritance from you to fund their expenses.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If you're planning to use an inheritance to fund living expenses for your retirement, you also might want to understand who is counting on an inheritance from you to fund their expenses.

F them kids

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If you're planning to use an inheritance to fund living expenses for your retirement, you also might want to understand who is counting on an inheritance from you to fund their expenses.

Yeah, this is something that I feel might be lost?

I know a number of people who are, lets say...'less than proactive' in regards to their lives and careers because the eventual inheritance will paper over all of that, meanwhile they coast through their lives in the warm feeling of that eventual safety blanket.

Meanwhile...they're demonstrating this attitude to their kids...well...sorry kids, there may not be much left for you once mommy and daddy are done.

Because unless you're unfathomably wealthy and well set up...inheritances tend to be a declining balance.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by kevman

I mean $73k is probably just a base Civic these days.

It wasn't long ago $45k was expensive for a loaded V6 Accord. Now it's loaded Civic.

Originally Posted by Locke

$73K car? And here I thought you said that Teachers dont make enough money??

My 2025 Bronco had an MSRP of $78k and change. New vehicle pricing is out of control.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, this is something that I feel might be lost?

I know a number of people who are, lets say...'less than proactive' in regards to their lives and careers because the eventual inheritance will paper over all of that, meanwhile they coast through their lives in the warm feeling of that eventual safety blanket.

Meanwhile...they're demonstrating this attitude to their kids...well...sorry kids, there may not be much left for you once mommy and daddy are done.

Because unless you're unfathomably wealthy and well set up...inheritances tend to be a declining balance.

For typical Canadians, inheritance will come largely in the form of a house being sold. If your parents are homeowners, and you’re a homeowner, I’m not sure I see how the pot is diminished. In fact, since on average families are getting smaller, the pot will be divided among fewer siblings in the succeeding generation. The only way the home value will be diminished is if you borrow against the value of your home, or liquidate it to fund your retirement. Which would be pretty unfair if you didn’t set any aside for your kids.

And I haven’t seen anyone suggest it’s cool to spend your entire inheritance if you have kids*. The question was whether people factor it in at all. And you have to be either naive or privileged to believe the enormous monetary value of homes in the country isn’t being factored into expectations around retirement.

For a lot of Canadians it’s barely even a choice - if you have $75k saved in RRPSs after retiring from a life working at a license registry or Co-op at $55k a year, the $150k gain from half or third of a house will mean the difference between a secure retirement and a bleak one. Whereas if you have $750k saved, it’s no real sacrifice to pass that $150k directly to your own kids.

I imagine the typical Canadian, who falls between those two extremes, will pass some on to the next generation and use some to supplement their retirement.

* The moral judgements being made here seem inconsistent. If you think passing your entire inheritance on to your kids is the right thing to do, do you think the right thing for your kids to do will be to pass their entire inheritance on to their kids?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

For typical Canadians, inheritance will come largely in the form of a house being sold. If your parents are homeowners, and you’re a homeowner, I’m not sure I see how the pot is diminished. In fact, since on average families are getting smaller, the pot will be divided among fewer siblings in the succeeding generation. The only way the home value will be diminished is if you borrow against the value of your home, or liquidate it to fund your retirement. Which would be pretty unfair if you didn’t set any aside for your kids.

And I haven’t seen anyone suggest it’s cool to spend your entire inheritance if you have kids*. The question was whether people factor it in at all. And you have to be either naive or privileged to believe the enormous monetary value of homes in the country isn’t being factored into expectations around retirement.

For a lot of Canadians it’s barely even a choice - if you have $75k saved in RRPSs after retiring from a life working at a license registry or Co-op at $55k a year, the $150k gain from half or third of a house will mean the difference between a secure retirement and a bleak one. Whereas if you have $750k saved, it’s no real sacrifice to pass that $150k directly to your own kids.

I imagine the typical Canadian, who falls between those two extremes, will pass some on to the next generation and use some to supplement their retirement.

* The moral judgements being made here seem inconsistent. If you think passing your entire inheritance on to your kids is the right thing to do, do you think the right thing for your kids to do will be to pass their entire inheritance on to their kids?

Inheritance and retirement is both pretty individualized and complicated. I have had clients who are reliant on an inheritance to fund their retirement, not so much as the one way to pay their monthly bills, but to bolster their financial security. The reality is, longevity risk is a massive issue and with all of us living longer and also living better for longer, this risk becomes more difficult to manage. So, plenty of people are older and not hoping for their parents demise, but also looking at the cash infusion as more necessary to give them peace of mind.

You can likely see the paradox. Their parents are both living longer, and better…meaning the timing of that cash infusion is “later” and in the meantime those parents are spending more of that money. This is one of the problems with relying on these funds; the timing is totally unknown. That goes along with other issues mentioned here (you might not be in the will, might get less than expected, might have a protracted legal battle, etc.)

And as far as leaving money to the kids, I see a wide variety there. Some clients are really focused on giving the kids money, and others feel that they’ll make sure they have a great stay to adulthood and a career (by paying for school, helping with down payments, etc) but less focused on the inheritance. The kids will get what’s leftover, which like Cliff says is often real estate and remaining investments.

[RichieRich]

Originally Posted by Slava

Inheritance and retirement is both pretty individualized and complicated. I have had clients who are reliant on an inheritance to fund their retirement, not so much as the one way to pay their monthly bills, but to bolster their financial security. The reality is, longevity risk is a massive issue and with all of us living longer and also living better for longer, this risk becomes more difficult to manage. So, plenty of people are older and not hoping for their parents demise, but also looking at the cash infusion as more necessary to give them peace of mind.

You can likely see the paradox. Their parents are both living longer, and better…meaning the timing of that cash infusion is “later” and in the meantime those parents are spending more of that money. This is one of the problems with relying on these funds; the timing is totally unknown. That goes along with other issues mentioned here (you might not be in the will, might get less than expected, might have a protracted legal battle, etc.)

And as far as leaving money to the kids, I see a wide variety there. Some clients are really focused on giving the kids money, and others feel that they’ll make sure they have a great stay to adulthood and a career (by paying for school, helping with down payments, etc) but less focused on the inheritance. The kids will get what’s leftover, which like Cliff says is often real estate and remaining investments.

Good discussion folks.
Now we are tip toeing around generational wealth. Apparantly statistically it doesn’t last too many generations.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

Good discussion folks.
Now we are tip toeing around generational wealth. Apparantly statistically it doesn’t last too many generations.

Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations is the saying. I can see how that happens and it’s not altogether surprising.

[puckedoff]

It should be the norm for people to pass inheritances to grandchildren rather than their kids. If I croak at ~90, my kids will be in their sixties and (hopefully) fairly well set, while their kids would be ~30 theoretically and the inheritance would be much more impactful.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

You can likely see the paradox. Their parents are both living longer, and better…meaning the timing of that cash infusion is “later” and in the meantime those parents are spending more of that money. This is one of the problems with relying on these funds; the timing is totally unknown. That goes along with other issues mentioned here (you might not be in the will, might get less than expected, might have a protracted legal battle, etc.)

Yes, so much uncertainty makes planning very difficult. And it’s becoming increasingly common for people to inherit only once they’re already retired themselves.

Which is why I emphasized the housing portion of it - its value is likely to endure until the last parent has died. When you combine the incredibly high value of property today with the fact many Canadians have not saved enough for retirement, those windfalls will wind up being very important to many retirements (and I expect account for most of the expected $1 trillion in wealth transfer).

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

Good discussion folks.
Now we are tip toeing around generational wealth. Apparantly statistically it doesn’t last too many generations.

There are different kinds of generational wealth. The Mannix family passing on hundreds of millions to their kids is one kind. The kind that’s more salient to Canadians as a whole is the more moderate inter-generational wealth transfers. It has become increasingly difficult to get on the property ladder without parental support to the tune of $100k+. Society is splitting into those who have access to that kind of family support and those who don’t.

Originally Posted by puckedoff

It should be the norm for people to pass inheritances to grandchildren rather than their kids. If I croak at ~90, my kids will be in their sixties and (hopefully) fairly well set, while their kids would be ~30 theoretically and the inheritance would be much more impactful.

Yes, it will do much more good at that age than later. However, you don’t want to cause resentment by skipping a generation who were expecting to inherit. Ideally, people would be open, transparent, and deliberate about this stuff with everyone involved. But that’s not easy when you’re dealing with two subjects (money and death) that people don’t like to talk about openly.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

It should be the norm for people to pass inheritances to grandchildren rather than their kids. If I croak at ~90, my kids will be in their sixties and (hopefully) fairly well set, while their kids would be ~30 theoretically and the inheritance would be much more impactful.

This makes some sense, but there are a few considerations. One is that a lot (and I mean a lot!) of those boomers still have a bunch of debt. So, those inheritances are spoken for and that is kind of viewed as a get out of jail free card by a lot of boomers. Mom and dad die, you inherit a bunch of cash and pay those debts so that the retirement plan works.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yes, so much uncertainty makes planning very difficult. And it’s becoming increasingly common for people to inherit only once they’re already retired themselves.

Which is why I emphasized the housing portion of it - its value is likely to endure until the last parent has died. When you combine the incredibly high value of property today with the fact many Canadians have not saved enough for retirement, those windfalls will wind up being very important to many retirements (and I expect account for most of the expected $1 trillion in wealth transfer).

And the one enormous factor of that housing portion is that it's tax-free. That house that those folks lived in for 35 years, that grew from $200k to $1m means that there is $1m less some real estate fees to split among the heirs. It's not like an investment account (particularly a registered one) where there are taxes to be paid.

[Reaper]

I'm one of those people who haven't saved anything for retirement. I'm at the point where I don't plan on retiring simply due to not being able to afford it and time to a retirement age being short (less than 15 years). That being said, I do have about $20K that I need to invest to help with my expected slowdown as I age. I just have no idea how to invest any of it and am quite frankly embarrassed to ask. How do I go about investing in something with safe returns? No admonishment please as writing this post was hard enough.