OECD warns poverty among seniors rising in Canada, points to public pensions gap

By Julian Beltrame, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – Tue, 26 Nov, 2013 

OTTAWA - An international think-tank warns that poverty among Canadian seniors is on the rise and that current pension safety nets may be inadequate to address the problem.

The comprehensive study on global pensions by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development showed that Canadians over 65 years of age are relatively well off when compared with most others in the 34-country group of advanced economies.

For example, the average poverty rate for the group in Canada was 7.2 per cent during the study period, among the 10 lowest in the OECD and better than the 12.8 per cent average.

But the report also points to gaps in the Canadian situation.

For instance, as poverty rates were falling in many OECD countries between 2007 and 2010, in Canada they rose about two percentage points.

As well, the report notes that public (government) transfers to seniors in Canada account for less than 39 per cent of the gross income of Canadian seniors, compared with the OECD average of 59 per cent, meaning more Canadians depend on workplace pensions to bridge the gap.

Meanwhile, public spending on pensions in Canada represents 4.5 per cent of the country's economic output, compared with and OECD average of 7.8 per cent.

Canadian seniors depend on income from private pensions and other capital for about 42 per cent of their total.

"As private pensions are mainly concentrated among workers with higher earnings, the growing importance of private provision in the next decades may lead to higher income inequality among the elderly," the report warns.

"Those facing job insecurity and interrupted careers are also more exposed to the risk of poverty because of the lower amounts they can devote to retirement savings."

The report notes that rising poverty among Canadian seniors, although still relatively low, is most acute among elderly women, especially those who are divorced or separated.

"Higher poverty among older women reflects lower wages, more part-time work and careers gaps during women's working lives," the report said while also noting "the effect of longer female life expectancy ... for which many women have not been able to save enough."

The OECD says Canada's current pension support, both private and public, replaces only about 45 per cent of average pre-retirement gross income, well below the two-thirds that may experts recommend.

Among lower income Canadians, however, the replacement rate is 80 per cent.

Some provinces, particularly Ontario and Prince Edward Island, have been putting pressure on the federal government to move ahead with expanding the Canada Pension Plan which, along with Old Age Security, represents the main source of public transfers to seniors in the country.

But federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has so far rejected the approach, saying the economy is not strong enough to withstand the added premiums on firms and individuals expansion would entail.

Last year, the federal government also cut back on the OAS program by raising the age of eligibility to 67 from 65 effective in 2023.

Canada's approach is not unusual, however. The report notes that following the 2008-09 crisis, pension reform has been widespread throughout the OECD, with many moving to a higher retirement age of 67.

"Some countries have gone even further, moving to 68 or 69 years, though no other country has gone as far as the Czech Republic, which decided on an open-ended increase of the pension age by two months per year," the OECD adds.

Another innovation being adopted by some countries is tying future benefits with demographic and economic growth projections.

The OECD notes that many if not all countries are facing challenges with aging population, slow economic growth and governmental fiscal concerns.

Why CPP Matters: Deconstructing Pension Reform - Blog from Susan Eng

This is a blog from Susan Eng on Huff Post Canada on November 22, 2013.
I usually place such article in reference but this time due to the popular content of the article I would like to post it entirely here:

If you believe that Canadians are not saving enough for their own retirement and many face a much lower standard of living when the paycheques stop, then you would be in good company with senior economists, pension experts and even most politicians.

Canadians are not using RRSPs enough, and those that do are in the higher income brackets. The people who need help saving for retirement are those earning under $100,000 -- i.e. most Canadians.

So the goal is to ensure that any change has broad effect and target the reasons why people are not saving.

Some say they don't earn enough to set anything aside. Ensuring that there are enough good-paying jobs so that people can afford to save is a top priority. It isn't an excuse to do nothing to secure their future. But how much are we talking about?

One proposal to increase the Canada Pension Plan will require additional contributions -- about $20 a month more for someone earning $40,000, matched by the employer. Those with higher incomes pay more to get more. Dollar for dollar, the CPP is the most cost-effective way to purchase a lifetime pension and arguably, at these rates, eminently affordable.

The key is that the employers match these contributions. Matched contributions makes the savings more productive for the employees but have also become the main talking point of employer lobby groups who call these modest amounts "job killers." Presumably, employers would rather forego hiring a needed worker than pay $20 or $60 a month more in CPP premiums. Despite evidence to the contrary, government believes them and thinks that stance is good public policy.

There is a myriad of ways to invest savings, maybe too many -- another reason people shy away -- but leading experts say that the best and most cost-effective for the average person is to put money into a large fund like the CPP managed by professionals who have access to better investments, keep costs low and maximize benefits.

Most important, a large fund stands the best chance of guaranteeing that benefits will be there when needed. The problem is that most employers don't offer pension plans and the CPP provides a maximum of $12,000 a year, the average is closer to $7,000.

So if an increase to CPP is good for Canadians why isn't it good for the economy? The just released Economic Statement paints a rosy picture but the finance minister still says that economic growth is too slow to allow any increase to CPP premiums. But presumably, the projected balanced budget in 2015 will allow for his promised tax cuts and income splitting. At least we can use the tax savings to contribute to a secure pension plan if we have the option.

Pension contributions are not taken out of the economy; they are immediately reinvested, creating jobs and bolstering business growth. The pension benefits paid out are taxed and spent in the economy. Most important for government coffers is that not only are these pensions not government payouts -- they're bought and paid for by the pensioners -- they actually offset Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplements that government would otherwise pay.

And it bears repeating that only the younger generation will benefit from any improvements to the CPP which has enough to pay out benefits for the next 75 years. Everyone pays their own way.

So what's holding things up? For all the political posturing since the finance ministers first offered a modest CPP enhancement in 2010, there has been little to show for it.

To amend the CPP, two-thirds of the provinces with two-thirds of the population must agree together with the federal government. At last count, Quebec was in along with Ontario, PEI and enough others to achieve the necessary provincial consensus -- confirmed in their recent declaration that any pension reform must include CPP enhancement. That leaves the federal government as the major holdout.

Minister Flaherty is due to meet his provincial counterparts in mid December -- another chance for Canadians to find out if political rhetoric will prevail or if we will take the first step to improving Canada's retirement security for a generation.

Saving Strategy and The Retirement

The Generation X live in a period which can be seen as not favorable compared to the baby boomer generation. In Canada, the housing prices are high and keep going up. The huge mortgage will take away most of the disposable income if you plan to buy a house. That will trigger everybody to think about a strategy how to accommodate the daily need, the retirement and the mortgage wrapped around your earning which will not be easy increased in today's economy.   


The sluggish economy, the public debt, the high unemployment and the higher cost of borrowing, even in today low interest  environment, are factors affecting younger generation in achieving wealth and comfort for retirement in later years of life. The higher cost of housing will cut down the saving significantly. The consequence is more and more people think about working beyond 65 or even until 70 because they think the saving is not enough for the retirement. Some people are even worry that the pension system will not be there for them when they retire. The basic government benefits could be collapsed due to high public debt and sluggish economy. The employer sponsored pension plan is trending toward smaller or eliminated entirely. Thus, the personal saving will become more important than ever.

For many years the pie of disposable income was divided in three: one for every day need, one for the housing and one for the saving, specially for the retirement. In the current economy, the cost for housing is getting bigger than one third, in some situation it even takes up one half of the monthly income, and the savings get smaller. For some people, savings in the early years seem to be impossible. Balancing out between the expenses and the savings therefore makes more sense and cutting cost for housing may be better for the long run. Saving for the retirement, saving for child education and life insurance are good investments for the family. Saving with registered retirement saving plan and use the tax refund to pay down the mortgage is considered a double saving. When the saving in registered retirement saving plan is large enough to cover the mortgage, you can set up a self-directed plan with the bank and lend the money to mortgage as an investment. This way, you pay the interest to yourself instead to the bank. The saving is threefold when saving with this strategy. 

Keep in mind, a bigger house has more expenses than a smaller house: larger bill for heating in winter, larger bill for electricity to keep the house cool in summer, more property tax etc,. It is also less liquid than other investment type such as stock or mutual fund. The house is a good investment but will suck more money into it. The trending of real state price could be reversed, the same reaction as the other investment in bad market condition. If you are limited in earning, the balance between investments in housing and the retirement is important.

Car is actually a money burning machine. Be cautious about buying and selecting car for your need. Car is the mean for transportation from one point to the another. Car value is decreased very fast. No matter what kind of car, value could be only fifty percent after a few years of use. Putting car in context of saving strategy is important. In the long term, car could be a very big expense in your budget. There are many expenses for car: car insurance cost, car maintenance cost, gas cost, parking fees...

The boomerang kid is a clear indicator of today sluggish and jittery economy. Number of adult children returning home and look for support from parents are on the rise. You may need to factor in this reality into your retirement planning as well. Everybody is facing a tough economic uncertainty in a saturated material world. A bumpy ride ahead is certainly for most people in the thirties or forties when job for life is not a standard as half century ago. Just hold it tight and take a deep breath.