How to have the most tax-efficient retirement income plan
Should you plan your retirement savings around paying the least amount of taxes? Find out the implications and the better solution.
Advertisement
Should you plan your retirement savings around paying the least amount of taxes? Find out the implications and the better solution.
I am 59 years old, semi-retired and live in Ontario. I have $302,000 in my non-registered investment account (mostly Canadian equities), $133,000 in my TFSA (in equities), and $287,000 in my RRSP (in equities). I have three non-registered GICs, in 1-, 2- and 3-year terms, all earning approximately 4.3%. Each contains $25,000. Lastly, I have a savings account with $20,000 earning 4.250%.
I am single, have no kids, no debt and own my home (valued at approximately $250,000). I have no company pension.
I have recently transitioned to part-time work and earn approximately $15,000 per year. I supplement my income with money from another small savings account.
By 65, I will be entitled to $1,150 per month and I will receive the maximum amount from OAS.
I plan on an income in retirement of $45,000 after tax.
My questions are:
—Francine
Francine, there’s no such thing as “the most tax-efficient method of drawing down investments over a lifetime.” I’ll show you why by modelling four different withdrawal strategies that allow you to successfully retire at age 60. Then I’ll make a small change to your circumstances, and you will see that what was once the most tax-efficient plan might no longer work.
Not only will you see why “the most tax-efficient plan” doesn’t exist, but you’ll also realize that, if you are working with a planner, it is vitally important to look at alternative solutions within a computer model and participate in the planning process.
The four different strategies help you to identify ways to reduce taxes. The first two have you starting Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS) at age 65, and the third and fourth ones start CPP at age 70 and OAS at age 65. Here they are:
Now, which solution do you think would be the most tax-efficient? Rank them from 1 to 4, based on what you think would be the “most tax-efficient.” Are you comfortable with any or all of these solutions?
Let’s look at the numbers based on the four solutions above.
Solutions | Lifetime tax | Final net worth pre-tax | After-tax estate value | Ranking (based on after-tax estate value) |
1. RRIF at 72 | $297,639 | $2,616,868 | $2,578,056 | Fourt |
2. RRIF at 60 | $195,138 | $2,639,265 | $2,598,991 | Third |
3. RRIF/RRSP/RRIF | $335,204 | $2,925,726 | $2,874,472 | Second |
4. RRSP top-up | $566,261 | $3,422,976 | $3,331,874 | First |
It’s interesting that the solution creating the most wealth is also the solution that has the highest lifetime tax liability.
I arrived at the above numbers with the following assumptions:
The main reasons the RRSP top-up solution did so well include:
This table shows what happens when you spend an extra $10,000 a year or live to age 83, which is the life expectancy for women in Canada, according to Statistics Canada data.
Solutions | After-tax estate value of base plan | After-tax estate value of$10,000 increased spending | Death at age 83 |
1. RRIF at 72 | $2,578,056 (fourth) | $1,248,716 (third) | $1,650,538 (third) |
2. RRIF at 60 | $2,598,991 (third) | $1,166,525 (fourth) | $1,765,712 (first) |
3. RRIF/RRSP/RRIF | $2,874,472 (second) | $1,450,865 (first) | $1,722,081 (second) |
4. RRSP top-up | $3,331,874 (first) | $1,273,512 (second) | $1,642,492 (fourth) |
Again, this looks interesting. If you live until age 83, the best solution from the previous chart becomes the lowest-ranked solution. Francine, of all these solutions, allow you to retire at age 60. So, which one would you choose?
The challenge with financial planning is that things change. It’s good to simulate a plan over your lifetime to get a general sense of what’s possible. But once you have that, you’ll want to consider tax planning annually and/or over a five-year projection, particularly before you reach age 65 and receive your CPP and OAS.
Francine, if you really want a proper answer to this question, you need a financial planner to simulate it within a computer model, providing your input, to make it your plan. Planners can run the simulations, but only you know how you want to live and what strategies are a fit for you.
Share this article Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Share on Reddit Share on Email
While I understand you can’t provide examples for every possible scenario, the fact that the chosen life expectancy for the first group of strategies was 100 is not a good choice for most readers. The odds of living to 100 for those that are currently retired is quite small. Obviously it will tilt in favor of the strategy of further tax deferment.
Dying with the most money is not my strategy since I don’t have any heirs.
Having said that, it would have been nice had the article mentioned available and recommended retirement software planning tools.
I don’t understand why maximizing the estate value is considered the best solution here. This woman stated that she has no children. Why would she want to have anything left in her estate (other than to cover final costs) when she dies?
Good sales pitch.
What she needs is a simple, largely predictable, low risk, marginal income adjustment plan. What you have offered is something very few people will comprehend.
I’ve been doing my own FP, looking at this lady’s assets with no dependents, I can see that she surely can retire at 60 and will be able to live a comfortable life
What is the tax advantage for solution #3 converting RRSP to RRIF for 3 years and converting back again to RRSP?
Also didn’t mention buying lifetime annuities.