PERB In Need of Banner

Think before you buy an RRSP

dirtydan

Banned
Oct 7, 2004
1,059
0
0
58
sdw said:
http://rrsp.finance.sympatico.msn.ca/rrsp/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2703080

If you aren't making a very good income, you actually hurt yourself buying an RRSP.

Very true. Although a person can reap the initial tax break when buying RRSP's, you will get dinged pretty good when you cash them in. Over the last number of years I have noticed a very steep decline in RRSP advertising. At one time there were loads of ads to buy RRSP's and now there are very few.
 

Jodie

B.Bj, M.Sog, Fs.D
Mar 14, 2004
661
5
0
Vancouver, BC
www.vancouverjodie.com
Another thing to consider if you are in a lower tax bracket - especially early on in your working life (i.e. when your annual income is liable to increase substantially over the next 10-15 yrs) - is that the tax reduction benefit of an RRSP is negligible. You'd be better off to build up contribution room so that you can divert more of your taxable income when you are earning a higher income and being taxed at a higher rate.

To figure out how much tax you will save by diverting income to RRSPs, just calculate your effective tax rate (the amount of tax you actually paid - multiply by 100 - divide by your annual income). Most people would be surprised to find their effective tax rate is actually quite low. I discovered that mine is only about 10%, which means that if I contribute $250/month to an RRSP, I am actually only deferring $300 in taxes.

I put my savings into non-registered investments and build up RRSP contribution room. I avoid paying taxes on investment earnings by not selling my investment instruments unless they are performing poorly. If it ever becomes more beneficial to put my money into an RRSP, I will have the option to do so at any time.
 

Thais

New member
Apr 29, 2006
242
1
0
Calgary
Jodie said:
Another thing to consider if you are in a lower tax bracket - especially early on in your working life (i.e. when your annual income is liable to increase substantially over the next 10-15 yrs) - is that the tax reduction benefit of an RRSP is negligible. You'd be better off to build up contribution room so that you can divert more of your taxable income when you are earning a higher income and being taxed at a higher rate.
To me, the value of contributing to RRSPs has less to do with reducing the marginal tax rate and is more about compound interest. RRSP investments are growing tax free, so those 10-15 years are going to make a very significant difference to the amount you end up with in the future.

You have to balance the projected returns against potential tax savings over a period of time, and decide what you are more comfortable with. In my opinion, what Jodie says makes a lot of sense if your expected significant income increase takes place over the next 2-5 years. But for 10-15, compound interest is a more important factor.
 

Thais

New member
Apr 29, 2006
242
1
0
Calgary
It was 10-15 years, not 10-15%.
I don't expect anything more than an average of 8-9% on long-term investments, at least when doing calculations.
 

KingLeer

New member
Jul 28, 2003
200
0
0
Lower Mainalnd
The fact is most people put the wrong type of investments into RRSP's. Equities, such as stocks, are taxed on a capital gains basis which has a top rate of 21%. Dividends are taxed at a top rate of about 31%. If these investments are put into an RRSP, they are taxed as income when withdrawn, the top rate being approximately 44% currently. If you have the luxury of being able to invest in both equities and fixed income investments, consider holding the fixed income investments in the RRSP and the equity and dividend investments outside of the RRSP.
 

Jodie

B.Bj, M.Sog, Fs.D
Mar 14, 2004
661
5
0
Vancouver, BC
www.vancouverjodie.com
Iwannarocu said:
However the first one is a little dubious based on my experience, as a person who's earned income is increasing would presumably also get RRSP limit increases to reflect these increases.
The current contribution limit is the lesser of 18% of income or $19K, which means that a person earning in excess of $106K would benefit from having unused contribution room from previous years.

You're right that the application of this principle is limited, as a lot of people will never reach that income level, but I have both time and ambition on my side ;)
 

Sonny

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2004
3,734
219
63
It may be that you can do better by using money skillfully outside RRSPs than within them, even taking into consideration the deferred tax. If the marginal benefit is greater outside, then work it outside. When you are at the point of utilizing RRSP savings, you convert them to a RRIF, basically an annuity. If you instead have wealth outside the RRSP envelope, you do what you want anyway you want.

Also there is the question of what lifestyle you will have at age 65, 70, 75... whatever. Older folks generally do not have the same consumption interests that people do in their 30s, 40s and 50s. Their needs are generally simpler, and they generally don't need $60k a year in income. In fact, if an older person owns their home, say a 2 BR condo apartment, and owns their car, without any debt at all, then usually a relatively modest income services quite well, along with little stashes for the odd cruise or annual trip to wherever. So, maybe thinking along those lines will provide a younger person with more financial liberty now without sacrificing a confortable retirement when older.
 

Sir Jim

Member
Jun 13, 2003
659
3
18
I still think the main reason for the RRSP that I recommend particularily to my younger staff is the forced home savings program. You dump as much in as you can afford and then withdraw a portion when you buy your first home.
I missed out on this program but many of my friends utilized this and are just now paying off the last payments back to their RRSP.

For me personally, the only benefit is the immediate tax reduction since when I withdraw the amount will exceed or meet my current annual earnings and will be taxed at the same rates I currently pay. However it is a great forced savings vehicle especially if you borrow to fund it each year. I never would have been disciplined enough to save as much as I have with out this process.

Many of my friends though, have reduced their RRSP funding drastically and increased their mortgage borrowing capacity to finance million dollar homes which have increased in value well ahead of most RRSP portfolios and will remain tax free due to personal residence capital gains exemptions. I wish had done this since seeing a large RRSP statement each month just isn't the same as pulling into the driveway of your mansion.
 

Sonny

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2004
3,734
219
63
Sir Jim said:
Many of my friends though, have reduced their RRSP funding drastically and increased their mortgage borrowing capacity to finance million dollar homes which have increased in value well ahead of most RRSP portfolios and will remain tax free due to personal residence capital gains exemptions.
Exactly what I was referring to. Young folks can buy a fixer-upper house, live in it for 18 months while updating it, sell it for a non-taxed profit, and move into the next house. If you don't mind moving every 18 months or so, then this is a great way to build wealth.

Other alternatives to RRSPs are very profitable businesses. One considers cash-based opportunities, write-off advantages, and income smoothing by having a fiscal year end of, say, July 31. One pays tax but the marginal return can be greater than that of RRSPs.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,189
0
0
Another Sun Financial Article

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=03bd2a69-8b65-4a8d-a197-b1a2a2f8e98b

Taken with the first one I posted in this thread, it can be seen why RRSPs are not the best avenue for people under about 50,000 in annual income.

There is some explanation on how the dividend tax credit and capital gains work and why you should take advantage of them before blindly dumping money into an RRSP.

A little expansion:

For many years equity shares were held long term by investors. The investor made a return on their investment through dividends and as long as the company paid dividends and wasn't dropping in equity share value, the investor held onto the shares.

Two things happened. Governments started to tax Dividends and we had an infection of the "Milkin" philosphy of equity ownership.

We got into the whole "pump and dump" model of equity ownership where it was in the player's interest to pump the share through imaginative press releases, even more imaginative financial statements and management renumeration based on how imaginative management was.

The abuses with the whole "greed" system have resulted in governments using their power to tax to strongly encourage a return to the "long term hold and live off the dividends" system of equity share ownership.

I don't know if our governments are strong enough to stay the course. It may be that they don't realize just how much of the North American economy is based on sheer vapour. Once the equity share values start seeking a value based on their true return rather than a pumped short term value, our governments may abandon this experiment.
 
Last edited:

Sonny

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2004
3,734
219
63
Iwannarocu said:
It's not that this advice is nonsense but it does assume house prices will continue to rise, which may or may not happen. I'm always a little cautious about taking recent history and projecting what's going to happen going forward, especially given the huge rise in prices recently.
Lower mainland BC was a very unusual market a while back with all the Asian, mainly HK money, coming in buying up anything at almost any price. Then there was the ten year slump as a lot of these properties were later offered for resale at no gain or at a loss. The number of real estate transactions in BC remained overall okay but the value of the transactions suffered. Eventually real estate values, in the absence of a calamity, return and increase.

If one is careful, methodical and moderate in their expectation of gain, one can make money in any real estate market.
 

Sonny

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2004
3,734
219
63
My suggestion about real estate is in the logic of my earlier post, about skillfully buying fixer-uppers as primary residences, modestly renovating, living in them for 18 months or so, and then selling for a tax-free gain, before moving on to the next. This was intended for folks who do not have the means to purchase income properties, for which the rental return these days makes the investment dicey, and for which there are other risks. And the approach need not be particularly speculative. So, compared to a RRSP investment strategy, this is an alternative that may provide some good results while also stepping folks through housing.
 

FuZzYknUckLeS

Monkey Abuser
May 11, 2005
2,212
0
0
Schmocation
Does this not pose a conundrum to the low-income earner who is advised to buy RRSP's to offset their income tax bill?
 
Vancouver Escorts