Who died before they collected Canadian Pension Plan? (CPP)
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
Actually, that's not true at all. Your CPP is not affected if you earn over a certain amount; what is affected is your OAS which is "social benefits repayment" and is a portion of what you have actually received.
FYI
You're quoting quite "generous" payments and they're usually not as much as you've stated. It depends on the amount of the deceased's contributions so it's not as straight forward as you have stated. The $2500 is correct and it's taxable to whomever receives it (bogus in MHO). Very few of the people I deal with get $600 or $650/month in survivor's benefits and I deal with hundreds every year. They would be extremely happy to receive that amount BTW.
JMO
I am on the CPP website and they have 2 categories for survivor benefits - Under 65 and Over 65.
Canada Pension Plan pensions and benefits - Monthly and maximum payment amounts January to December 2017
Scroll up at the link.......
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/be...it/amount.html
Survivor's pension – younger than 65$419.42 - $604.32
Survivor's pension – 65 and older$309.28 - $668.50
Combined survivor's and retirement pension (at age 65)$834.25 - $1,114.17
Combined survivor's pension and disability benefit$1,025.31 - $1,313.66
Economist who championed tax-free savings accounts now says they were a bad idea and public pensions better
https://t.co/uVBYqUH9rt
Because “they” usually won’t tell you, investing in retirement savings collectively, as a nation, is cheaper and more effective than individual savings, like RRSPs and TFSAs that only the richer set are able to use.
Only the pretty well-off have cash to invest in RRSPs and TFSAs, and since over half of Canadians are a couple paycheques away from homelessness, most Canadians don’t use them.
Doubling the CPP payout for retirees, in contrast, only costs about a 3% increase in contributions because the CPP Investment Board is so successful.
RRSPs and TFSAs are tax cuts for the rich, by stealth.
And now, even a big TFSA champ is saying that they didn’t accomplish the goals they were “supposed” to.
As we pivot to a new world of economic dignity for all, let’s stop buying into the rhetoric of welfare for the wealthy!
https://t.co/uVBYqUH9rt
Because “they” usually won’t tell you, investing in retirement savings collectively, as a nation, is cheaper and more effective than individual savings, like RRSPs and TFSAs that only the richer set are able to use.
Only the pretty well-off have cash to invest in RRSPs and TFSAs, and since over half of Canadians are a couple paycheques away from homelessness, most Canadians don’t use them.
Doubling the CPP payout for retirees, in contrast, only costs about a 3% increase in contributions because the CPP Investment Board is so successful.
RRSPs and TFSAs are tax cuts for the rich, by stealth.
And now, even a big TFSA champ is saying that they didn’t accomplish the goals they were “supposed” to.
As we pivot to a new world of economic dignity for all, let’s stop buying into the rhetoric of welfare for the wealthy!
What if your insurance company took that attitude. It is not an entitlement is is payment for
a service item you purchased. You didn't buy a car or a head of lettuce you bought insurance.
It is for when you reach the age of rusty joints and its time the government acknowledged that.
There was two positions taken. In Quebec they invested the money designated for pensions
and made the fund grow to pay out the benefits.
In the rest of Canada the government took the money and did a number of things, they offset
deficits, they built roads and bridges and infrastructure and loaned it to Provinces in joint
projects and in the end they did not invest it in our interests. If this were the private sector doing
this there would be an investigation and someone might even go to jail. When its the guys who
made these decisions they go to the head of the line to collect the lions share of the money that
is left. In the end we paid for something we're never going to fully benefit from. CPP amounted
to another tax without representation. If it were private and operated on the same economic
model we would have been shareholders and there would have been oversight
a service item you purchased. You didn't buy a car or a head of lettuce you bought insurance.
It is for when you reach the age of rusty joints and its time the government acknowledged that.
There was two positions taken. In Quebec they invested the money designated for pensions
and made the fund grow to pay out the benefits.
In the rest of Canada the government took the money and did a number of things, they offset
deficits, they built roads and bridges and infrastructure and loaned it to Provinces in joint
projects and in the end they did not invest it in our interests. If this were the private sector doing
this there would be an investigation and someone might even go to jail. When its the guys who
made these decisions they go to the head of the line to collect the lions share of the money that
is left. In the end we paid for something we're never going to fully benefit from. CPP amounted
to another tax without representation. If it were private and operated on the same economic
model we would have been shareholders and there would have been oversight
When I first started paying into C.P.P. I was paying $80 a year, now I'm collecting $7000! Mind you in those days interest rates were anywhere from about 6 - 20%.
Because that's when your OAS takes over. Or did anyway. It's the same in Ontario. In Ontario, a married couple on ODSP receive just shy of $1700/mo. If I'm reading the OAS tables correctly, it looks like married couples eligible for the OAS and GIS receive something along the lines of $2200/mo, give or take. Although the loss of prescription coverage can be pretty scary for some I imagine.
Yep, I remember buying CSBs with a 20% compound interest rate. Then again, I also remember paying less than $300/oz for gold. Not then but in the late 90's and early 2000's.
I can remember when you could buy gold for $35 an ounce.
It was at the time when $1 an hour was a good wage. Working past 65? Beware this Canada Pension Plan oddity
The government works in mysterious ways. The intent behind some of their pension rules is mystifying at best and counterproductive at worst. A great example is a little-known anomaly in the CPP rules that Jamie Golombek, managing director of tax and estate planning at CIBC Private Wealth Management, recently brought to my attention. It involves what happens to CPP benefits and contributions at the age of 65 under different scenarios
The anomaly is best described by an example. Consider two seniors, Hart and Borden. They are twins who were separated at birth. Both started to work at the age of 23 and continued to work right up until 65. They both contributed the entire time to the Canada Pension Plan so they are entitled to the maximum pension, which happens to be $1,114 a month in 2017. (I will ignore the pennies.)
Here is where their paths diverge. Borden retires at 65. He doesn’t need his CPP pension immediately, so he defers the start of it until 70. Even though Borden is not required to contribute to the CPP between 65 and 70, his starting pension at 70 is 42 per cent greater than it was at 65 (we will ignore inflation). As a result, Borden’s monthly CPP pension starting at 70 is $1,582.
Hart instead, he continues to work right up until 70. Just like his twin, Hart defers the start of his CPP until 70. The difference is Hart is forced to continue contributing to the CPP between 65 and 70. Annual contributions are $2,564.10 (ignoring inflation) so by 70, Hart has contributed $12,820 more than Borden. In spite of that, Hart is entitled to the same $1,582 of pension as Borden.
That’s right. Hart has paid into the plan for five years longer, but gets nothing for it. This happens because Hart and Borden deferred the start of their CPP pensions until 70. If they both started to collect CPP at 65, the situation would be different. They would both receive $1,114 a month, but Hart would also accrue extra pension credits because of his contributions to the CPP between 65 and 70. By 70, Hart would receive about $197 a month more than Borden.
Let’s see if we can figure out why the government would have established the rules in this fashion. One possibility is they are trying to discourage people from working past 65 by making them pay more to get the same CPP benefit. It seems unlikely that this is their motive considering the government-appointed Advisory Council on Economic Growth recommended that the age of eligibility for the Old Age Security pension, CPP and the GIS be increased beyond 65 to “meet the reality of an aging society.”
Another possibility is they are trying to encourage people to start their CPP pension at 65, whether they need the pension or not. It is not clear why they would do that since it doesn’t jibe with the fact that they encourage deferral of CPP by providing an increase of 8.4 per cent for each year the starting age is postponed. Besides, why make Hart take his CPP pension at 65 when he is still working and has no need for the benefit?
The most likely theory is the rationale is lost in the shrouds of time and the rule did not change with the times. As I have suggested in past articles, deferring CPP until 70 can make a great deal of financial sense if you have enough savings (or income) to tide you over until 70. It is unfortunate that people who continue to earn employment income would be penalized for doing the smart thing.
The easiest fix is for the government to eliminate the requirement to contribute to the CPP after 65, even if you continue to work. This is the only way that Hart and Borden are treated equitably if both defer commencement of their CPP benefits until 70.
Working past 65? Beware this Canada Pension Plan oddity - The Globe and Mail
The government works in mysterious ways. The intent behind some of their pension rules is mystifying at best and counterproductive at worst. A great example is a little-known anomaly in the CPP rules that Jamie Golombek, managing director of tax and estate planning at CIBC Private Wealth Management, recently brought to my attention. It involves what happens to CPP benefits and contributions at the age of 65 under different scenarios
The anomaly is best described by an example. Consider two seniors, Hart and Borden. They are twins who were separated at birth. Both started to work at the age of 23 and continued to work right up until 65. They both contributed the entire time to the Canada Pension Plan so they are entitled to the maximum pension, which happens to be $1,114 a month in 2017. (I will ignore the pennies.)
Here is where their paths diverge. Borden retires at 65. He doesn’t need his CPP pension immediately, so he defers the start of it until 70. Even though Borden is not required to contribute to the CPP between 65 and 70, his starting pension at 70 is 42 per cent greater than it was at 65 (we will ignore inflation). As a result, Borden’s monthly CPP pension starting at 70 is $1,582.
Hart instead, he continues to work right up until 70. Just like his twin, Hart defers the start of his CPP until 70. The difference is Hart is forced to continue contributing to the CPP between 65 and 70. Annual contributions are $2,564.10 (ignoring inflation) so by 70, Hart has contributed $12,820 more than Borden. In spite of that, Hart is entitled to the same $1,582 of pension as Borden.
That’s right. Hart has paid into the plan for five years longer, but gets nothing for it. This happens because Hart and Borden deferred the start of their CPP pensions until 70. If they both started to collect CPP at 65, the situation would be different. They would both receive $1,114 a month, but Hart would also accrue extra pension credits because of his contributions to the CPP between 65 and 70. By 70, Hart would receive about $197 a month more than Borden.
Let’s see if we can figure out why the government would have established the rules in this fashion. One possibility is they are trying to discourage people from working past 65 by making them pay more to get the same CPP benefit. It seems unlikely that this is their motive considering the government-appointed Advisory Council on Economic Growth recommended that the age of eligibility for the Old Age Security pension, CPP and the GIS be increased beyond 65 to “meet the reality of an aging society.”
Another possibility is they are trying to encourage people to start their CPP pension at 65, whether they need the pension or not. It is not clear why they would do that since it doesn’t jibe with the fact that they encourage deferral of CPP by providing an increase of 8.4 per cent for each year the starting age is postponed. Besides, why make Hart take his CPP pension at 65 when he is still working and has no need for the benefit?
The most likely theory is the rationale is lost in the shrouds of time and the rule did not change with the times. As I have suggested in past articles, deferring CPP until 70 can make a great deal of financial sense if you have enough savings (or income) to tide you over until 70. It is unfortunate that people who continue to earn employment income would be penalized for doing the smart thing.
The easiest fix is for the government to eliminate the requirement to contribute to the CPP after 65, even if you continue to work. This is the only way that Hart and Borden are treated equitably if both defer commencement of their CPP benefits until 70.
Working past 65? Beware this Canada Pension Plan oddity - The Globe and Mail
Well this topic came up yesterday as I went to the lawyer to change a few things in the will and paid attention to the living will(s). Yes they are 2 aspects to it.
Even my Private Pension has a fairly healthy reduction for the survivor.
I have never thought that fair, for anyone, in any aspect.
To me, if I had earned the Pension and lived I would receive it full so why does it matter who else receives? Regardless if the survivor gets a Private or CPP themselves that money should be paid in full as if I was still alive..........
The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) survivor's pension is paid to the person who, at the time of death, is the legal spouse or common-law partner of the deceased contributor.
If you are a separated legal spouse and the deceased had no cohabiting common-law partner, you may qualify for this benefit.
The amount you receive as a surviving spouse or common-law partner will depend on
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp.html
Even my Private Pension has a fairly healthy reduction for the survivor.
I have never thought that fair, for anyone, in any aspect.
To me, if I had earned the Pension and lived I would receive it full so why does it matter who else receives? Regardless if the survivor gets a Private or CPP themselves that money should be paid in full as if I was still alive..........
The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) survivor's pension is paid to the person who, at the time of death, is the legal spouse or common-law partner of the deceased contributor.
If you are a separated legal spouse and the deceased had no cohabiting common-law partner, you may qualify for this benefit.
The amount you receive as a surviving spouse or common-law partner will depend on
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp.html
Some company pensions have options
The company I worked for had such a plan....with several options
One was full pension with no survivor benefits....
Then several options for reduced pension from 50% to 100% survivor benefit...
After both my wife and I taking a complete physical and entering both our age and our life expectancy into a program a friend of mine at the time, who was a computer wizard had written...
I took the reduction to leave my wife 70% of my work pension.
In Cliff's case if he worked he would have been able to be on CPP disability for life and not Provincial which ends at 65.
Poor bastard.