Then I started thinking about some of the uninformed comments I've heard about RRSPs just in the time that I've been working (mid-80s onward):
- "They're a government money grab!"
- "I'd never contribute to one because I don't want to lose control of my own money!"
- "RRSPs are just a form of taxation."
- "I can't afford to put anything into my RRSP; besides, there's always the Old Age Pension and Canada Pension Plan."
- "What's the difference? Tax me now or tax me later. There's no incentive."
Even so, I'm still amazed when I encounter someone who's anti-RRSP. I can understand if a person's hazy about some slightly more esoteric aspect like the value of a spousal account, or why starting contributions early in their career makes such a difference. Those are a far cry, however, from thinking that RRSPs are a scam!
I think part of the reason why there are still people so willfully ignorant on this topic was also touched upon in the book where I encountered the IRA reference. The point was made by the author that tax breaks were traditionally something that only wealthy people could ever take advantage of. In fact, for decades, the term "tax break" was almost synonymous with "loophole for the rich." Some folks may still make that association today, or have at least formed a negative association with RRSPs from that original connotation.
Then there's the fact that the money is "registered," with a set of rules placed on what happens when you go to take it out, that probably doesn't sit right with some people. After all, the argument goes, if it's my money, why can't I take it out whenever I want? And of course, the answer is: you absolutely can withdraw the funds anytime you choose, but you may end up paying the income tax on it that you never paid originally. That seems to be a tough concept for those who don't get RRSPs. And if you can't get your head around that, then no wonder you'd shy away from them!
I remember having a conversation with someone a few years ago on this subject, and heard the "I can't afford to..." opinion come out. I quickly fired back with, "How can you afford not to?" That of course got a skeptical look in response, like I was one of those infomercial snake oil salesmen who claim you can work just 10 hours a week and make $100,000 per year in the process... So I asked the other person if they'd have some money to invest in a stock, if they were guaranteed to get a 40% return the first year, followed by normal returns in subsequent years... as long as they left it there? The answer was, "Oh, sure, but stocks aren't guaranteed, and things that are don't give nearly that kind of return." Then I had my opening! I have no idea if that person ever did invest in an RRSP after we finished talking, but I gave it my best shot.
In case it's not obvious, I love that Canada has RRSPs! Vicki and I should end up retired (or financially able to retire) in our mid-50s and mid-40s, respectively, largely thanks to the money that has grown in our RRSPs (and company pensions) and the tax money we saved as we contributed to them. I have this idea about slowly drawing our money back out of the registered accounts (and into just regular savings) during the years when we're not working but aren't yet officially retirement age. Why? So that we can get some of it back at a very low income tax rate, by using the graduated tax system to our advantage. Imagine putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into RRSPs with a tax break of 46%, and then taking it out while only paying tax at a 0 - 15% rate! How sweet is that?
In summary, RRSPs (and IRAs): good! People who are suspicious of RRSPs: silly!
2 comments:
I 100% agree with you. The only downside to the introduction of IRAs was that they replaced company pension plans. So instead of a Guaranteed Benefit pension plan, we have a Guaranteed Investment pension plan. Which is good because guaranteed Benefit pension plans in general are going to be in trouble with an aging population, but bad for the beneficiaries because if you are unlucky (stupid) enough to put all your RRSP money in Nortel just before it tanks, you're going to be working at Walmart as a Greeter until you croak.
Another downside is: I hope to retire with more income then when I was working... E.g. from Real Estate etc. Still... I agree with the 40% (+100% if the company matches) thing. And I like your idea of retiring early and pulling it out in bits and pieces... I may just have to steal that one. =)
One of the big issues with company pensions, as they used to work at least, was that they weren't portable. So if you worked for the same company your entire career, you generally had a terrific pension when you retired. However, if you got laid off - say, during a downsizing - you could end up with as little as nothing (assuming it was the sort of company pension where the employer managed it and the employee didn't contribute). Around the mid-80s (I think), the rules changed such that company pensions had to be portable (meaning you'd take whatever you'd contributed, what the company had contributed for you, and any growth the plan had experienced, with you if you left the company).
I agree that there's a big risk in having people individually manage their own RRSPs (though many do). On the other hand, many company plans used to simply invest in themselves (buy up shares), meaning that if you were 54 and your company tanked, not only might you end up out of work, but your company pension might go bust as well (talk to employees at some of the companies that experienced 'auditing irregularities' in the last 10 years, went bankrupt or lost 90% of their stock value, and now people in their 50s can't afford to retire!)
And yes, the 100% matching that some companies offer is an unbelievably sweet deal.
Post a Comment