All posts by Jonathan Chevreau

2023 Federal Budget: Deficit swells; AMT rises for wealthy but no jump in Capital Gains tax for middle class

Posted By |

The 2023 federal budget dropped on or about 4 pm Tuesday (March 28.) You can click here and here for budget documents and the latest from the Department of Finance. Below are links to some of the early media coverage, much of which is in Wednesday’s papers.

The theme of the budget is Making Life More Affordable, a somewhat comic choice given that government’s inflationary policies and high-spending, high-taxing behaviour is a big part of what makes life so expensive, especially for one-income couples. [See Steve Nease cartoon below on his take on the impact on the middle class.]

Here’s the Department of Finance’s backgrounder on it.

Pre-budget one of the biggest concerns expressed by investors was whether the capital gains tax or the inclusion rate might be hiked. That did not appear to transpire in the budget, at least for the middle class. See however Christopher Nardi’s article in the National Post highlighted below: he suggests those affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) may indeed pay more in capital gains tax.

And here’s CIBC Wealth’s tax guru Jamie Golombek, writing on both topics in the Financial Post: Alternative minimum tax changes will make it harder for high-income earners to avoid paying taxes.

Also hoped for was measures to delay or reduce annual forced taxable withdrawals from Registered Retirement Income Funds (RRIFs). I saw no mention of this in early coverage listed below.

CBC’s summary

On TV, the CBC highlighted that the deficit will grow by $69 billion between 2022 and 2028, no longer projecting a balanced budget in this fiscal framework. On the CBC website it provided the following highlights:

  • $43B in net new spending over six years.
  • 3 main priorities: health care/dental, affordability and clean economy.
  • Doubling of GST rebate extended for lower income Canadians, up to $467 for a family.
  • $13B over five years to implement dental care plan for families earning less than $90K.
  • $20B over six years for tax credits to promote investment in green technologies.
  • $4B over five years for an Indigenous housing strategy.
  • $359 million over five years for programs addressing the opioid crisis.
  • $158 million over three years for a suicide prevention hotline, launching Nov. 30.
  • Creation of new agency to combat foreign interference.
  • Deficit for 2022-23 expected to be $43B, higher than projected in the fall.
  • Higher than expected deficits projected for next 5 years.
  • Federal debt hits $1.18 trillion. Debt-to-GDP ratio will rise slightly over next 2 years.
Cartoon by Steve Nease

CTV’s summary

Here are the highlights in CTV’s view:

Budget 2023 prioritizes pocketbook help and clean economy, deficit projected at $40.1B.

  •  $2.5 billion for a GST tax credit billed as a ‘grocery rebate’
  •  $46.2 billion for federal-provincial-territorial health deals
  •  $13 billion for expanding the federal dental plan
  •  2 per cent cap on incoming excise duty increase on alcohol
  •  Advancing passenger protections but upping a traveller charge
  •  $4.5 billion for 30 per cent tax credit on clean tech manufacturing
  •  $15.4 billion in savings from public service spending cutbacks

Much of the budget was previously announced or telegraphed

The National Post weighed in with this: Chrystia Freeland abandons budget balance plan, adding $50 billion in debt. It noted “much of what is in the budget has been previously announced — or at the very least telegraphed. Ottawa will spend an extra $22 billion on health care over the next five years, as per provincial deals announced last month. It’s also adding about $7 billion for expanded dental care. Low-income Canadians will receive an extra GST credit, at a cost of $2.5 billion.

A Joe Biden Budget

Also at the Post, William Watson said Freeland delivers a Joe Biden budget.  

“From blue-collar bluster to giant green subsidies, Made-in-Canada packaging and make-the-rich-pay rhetoric, Canada’s federal budget borrows from the U.S.”

Green tax credits, more dental care as expected pre-budget

Also expected, according to this FP story published before the budget was released, was “significant” tax credits for the green economy, more measures on dental care and other ways to make life more “affordable,” including amendments to the Criminal Code to reduce predatory lending. It was expected the criminal interest rate be lowered to 35%, as it is in Quebec. The predatory lending measure is indeed included, as you can see in the link to the backgrounder above.

Also leaked earlier in the day was a report in the Globe & Mail that there will be a clean-tech manufacturing tax credit to encourage domestic mining of critical minerals.

Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) rises

Here is an early overview from the Globe & Mail after 4 pm: Federal budget 2023: Trudeau government bets on green economy, expands dental care.  The G&M reported Ottawa plans to raise “nearly $3-billion through changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is a second way of calculating tax obligations to ensure a high wealth individual can’t make excessive use of tax deductions … 99 per cent of the AMT would be paid by those who earn more than $300,000 a year and about 80 per cent would be paid by those who earn more than $1-million.”

Christopher Nardi in the National Post wrote the following summary, with the subheading “Bye bye federal budget surplus, hello light recession.”

Note this sentence from Nardi:

‘With this first overhaul since 1986, the AMT will now apply largely to Canadians in the top income tax bracket (over $173,000) and will see their capital gains inclusion rate jump to 100 per cent and a host of eligible tax deductions, like moving or employment expenses, dropped to 50 per cent.”

Continue Reading…

Fraudsters more active than ever but less than half of us take protective measures

Posted By |
Image www.antifraudcentre-centreantifraude.ca/

Yes, it’s March, also dubbed Fraud Prevention Month. To mark it, a TD survey has been released that finds fraudsters are getting more persistent as the cost of living keeps soaring.

While 62% of Canadians agree they are being targeted now more than ever, a whopping 46% haven’t taken any measures to educate themselves or take protective measures in the past year.

Among the findings:

  • 47% believe the rising cost of living and other financial hardships will expose them to more scams
  • 78% don’t have much confidence in their ability to identify fraud or scams
  • 54% feel stressed or anxious about financial fraud
  • 31% are too embarrassed to tell anyone if they were the victim of a fraud or scam
  • 66% of Gen Z and 44% of Millennials admit they wouldn’t tell someone if they were swindled

The full press release is here.

“As Canadians report being targeted by a record number of financial fraud attempts, many can benefit from using the tools and resources available to protect themselves and their loved ones,” says Mohamed Manji, Vice President of Canadian Fraud Management at TD in the release, “It’s very important to exercise caution, especially at a time when fraudsters may take advantage of the economic challenges many Canadians are currently facing. In addition to the robust security measures TD has in place for its customers, the best defence against financial fraud is being aware and knowing how to spot it.”

Both TD and the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre offer a comprehensive library of articles discussing the latest trends in scams and measures Canadians can take to enhance their awareness and avoid falling victim to fraudsters.

Targeting mostly via e-mail or telephone 

The survey found 72% of Canadians reported being targeted by email/text message fraud, up 14 percentage points from last year, while 66% were targeted over the phone. Oddly, the poll finds Fraudsters seem to be pivoting away from social media, with only 26% targeted this way, 10 percentage points less than 2022.

Those polled were most concerned about identity theft (52%), title fraud (23%) and fake emergencies (20%).

Factors likely to increase vulnerability to fraud include age (43%),  loneliness or isolation (35%), moving recently to Canada (34%) and financial hardship or job loss (32%).

“We’re seeing more fraudsters preying on customers through the ‘grandparent’ or ’emergency’ scam,” adds Manji. “This cruel crime is often successful because it exploits someone’s desire to care for their loved ones. If you get a call from somebody claiming to be a family member or friend in immediate need of funds, hang up the phone and call them back using a number you have for them.”

TD says that with 31% saying they’d be too embarrassed to tell anyone if they were a fraud or scam victim, it’s clear there’s some stigma in talking about this type of crime. If someone believes they’ve fallen victim to a scam, they should immediately report it to their financial institution, local police department, credit bureaus (Equifax and TransUnion) and the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.

How can Canadians protect themselves?

TD recommends the following tips and advice: Continue Reading…

$1.7 million to retire, revisited

Posted By |
Image by Pexels: Tima Miroshnichenko

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column takes a more in-depth look at the Hub blog that ran earlier this month. For the full Retired Money version that ran on Friday, click on the highlighted text here: How much money do you need to retire in Canada? Is it really $1.7 million? 

Both look at the widely publicized BMO poll that found Canadians now need $1.7 million to retire on average. The figure used to be $1.4 million but inflation has made it a bit tougher. Here’s the CNW newswire release from Feb. 7th.

As I mention in the MoneySense column, the Hub version was written off the top of my head and published as part of the initial news cycle. With an extra week to go to expert sources, the updated column is more nuanced and has more accurate returns projections and calculations where the first version consisted of guesstimates.

Of course, generalizations are always dangerous and that goes double for retirement planning, especially over the kind of 40-hour time horizon involved. It’s one thing to be a Millennial investor just starting out on the retirement journey and quite another to be a boomer like myself, looking back at portfolios begun three or four decades earlier. As the original Hub version commented, $1 million isn’t what it used to be. Even so, even maxing out your RRSP contributions each year will take some doing: as I wrote after my quick guesstimate, if you divide $1.7 million by 40 you get $42,400 a year that needs to be contributed each and every year, or almost twice the maximum RRSP contribution permitted even if you’re a top earner.

If you’re fortunate enough to be one half of a couple, $850,000 per spouse seems a lot more achievable. And if you have a Defined Benefit pension plan, you may not need anything else, whether from an RRSP, TFSA or non-registered savings. If you hang in to a gold-plated DB pension plan for 40 long years, odds are it alone will be the equivalent of $1 million, and possibly backstopped by taxpayers and indexed to inflation to boot.

But if you begin investing early, you won’t need to save anywhere close to $1.7 million because of investment returns that are tax-deferred inside an RRSP. Because of the time value of money, even the modest 4% compounded annual investment returns will over the course of 40 years get you to the promised land.

The Hub blog assumed investment returns of 4% per annum either from fixed income (4- or 5-year GICs) or from high-yielding dividend-paying stocks, like Canada’s bank stocks, utilities or telecom majors. In the MoneySense column, wealth advisor Matthew Ardrey of TriDelta Financial assumes a more hopeful 5% return across those asset classes.

Using the retirement calculator Calculator.net, used by BMO (www.calculator.net), if you can earn a conservative 4% a year, you’d need to contribute only $17,202 (rounded) at the end of each year to reach $1.7 million after 40 years. That breaks down to $688,074 in total contributions and another $1,011,926 in interest payments.

And if you can do better than 4%, you could contribute even less and make up the difference in investment returns: at 5% a year, you’d need to contribute only $13,403 (rounded) at the end of each year to reach $1.7 million after 40 years. That breaks down to $536,110 in contributions and $1,163,891 in interest.

P.S. MyOwnAdvisor doesn’t think most need to save $1.7 million

As a postscript, I note that on his Weekend Reads feature, MyOwnAdvisor also tackled this question of $1.7 million, which ran after I had already submitted my MoneySense column on the same topic. You can find Mark’s take here, but here’s his bottom line:

Do you really need $1.7 million to retire?

I highly doubt it.

Or, maybe.

I dunno.

“It depends.”

It depends on you. I mean that! 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

$1.7 million to retire: doable or out of reach?

Posted By |
Front page of Wednesday’s Financial Post print edition.

Plenty of press this week over a BMO survey that found Canadians now believe they’ll need $1.7 million to retire, compared to just $1.4 million two years ago (C$). The main reason for the higher nest-egg target is of course inflation.

As you’d expect, the headline of the story alone attracted plenty of media attention. I heard about it on the car radio listening to 102.1 FM [The Edge]: there, a female broadcaster who was clearly of Millennial vintage deemed the $1.7 million ludicrously out of reach, personalizing it with her own candid confession that she herself hasn’t even begun to save for Retirement. Nor did she seem greatly fussed about it.

Here’s the Financial Post story which ran in Wednesday’s paper: a pick-up of a Canadian Press feed; a portion is shown to the left. The writer, Amanda Stephenson, quoted BMO Financial Group’s head of wealth distribution and advisory services Caroline Dabu to the effect the $1.7 million number says more about the country’s economic mood than about real-life retirement necessities.

BMO’s own client experience finds that “many overestimate the number that they need to retire,” she told CP, “It really does have to be taken at an individual level, because circumstances are very different … But $1.7 million, I would say, is high.”

Here’s my own take and back-of-the-envelope calculations. Keep in mind most of the figures below are just guesstimates: those who have financial advisors or access to retirement calculators can get more precise numbers and estimates by using those resources. I may update this blog with input from any advisors or retirement experts reading this who care to fill in the blanks by emailing me.

A million isn’t what is used to be

Image via Tenor.com

Back in the old days, a million dollars was considered a lot of money, even if that amount today likely won’t get you a starter home in Toronto or Vancouver. This was highlighted in one of those Austin Powers movies, in which Mike Myers (Dr. Evil) rubs his hands in glee but dates himself by threatening to destroy everything unless he’s given a “MILLL-ion dollars,” as if it were an inconceivably humungous amount.

The quick-and-dirty calculation of how much $1 million would generate in Retirement depends of course on your estimated rate of return. When interest rates were near zero, this resulted in a depressing conclusion: 1% of $1 million is $10,000 a year, or less than $1,000 a month pre-tax. When my generation started working in the late 70s, a typical entry-level job paid around $12,000 a year so you could figure that $1 million plus the usual government pensions would get you over the top in retirement.

Inflation has put paid to that outcome but consider two rays of hope, as I explained in a recent MoneySense Retired Money column. To fight inflation, Ottawa and most central banks around the world have hiked interest rates to more reasonable levels. Right now you can get a GIC paying somewhere between 4% and 5%. Conservatively, 4% of $1 million works out to $40,000 a year. 4% of $1.7 million is $68,000 a year. That certainly seems to be a liveable amount. More so if you have a paid-for home: as I say in my financial novel Findependence Day, “the foundation of Financial Independence is a paid-for home.”

Couples have it easier

If you’re one half of a couple, presumably two nest eggs of $850,000 would generate the same amount: for simplicity we’ll assume a 4% return, whether in the form of interest income or high-yielding dividend stocks paid out by Canadian banks, telecom companies or utilities. I’d guess most average Canadians would use their RRSPs to come up with this money.

This calculation doesn’t even take into consideration CPP and OAS, the two guaranteed (and inflation-indexed) government-provided pensions. CPP can be taken as early as age 60 and OAS at 65, although both pay much more the longer you wait, ideally until age 70. Again, couples have it easier, as two sets of CPP/OAS should add another $20,000 to $40,000 a year to the $68,000, depending how early or late one begins receiving benefits.

This also assumes no employer-pension, generally a good assumption given that private-sector Defined Benefit pensions are becoming rarer than hen’s teeth. I sometimes say to young people in jest that they should try and land a job in either the federal or provincial governments the moment they graduate from college, then hang on for 40 years. Most if not all governments (and many union members) offer lucrative DB pensions that are guaranteed for life with taxpayers as the ultimate backstop, and indexed to inflation. Figure one of these would be worth around $1 million, and certainly $1.7 million if you’re half of a couple who are in such circumstances.

Private-sector workers need to start RRSPs ASAP

But what if you’re bouncing from job to job in the private sector, which I presume will be the fate of our young broadcaster at the Edge? Then we’re back to what our flippant commentator alluded to: if she doesn’t start to take saving for Retirement seriously, then it’s unlikely she’ll ever come up with $1.7 million. In that case, her salvation may have to come either from inheritance, marrying money or winning a lottery.

For those who prefer to have more control over their financial future, recall the old saw that the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. In Canada, that step is to maximize your RRSP contributions every year, ideally from the moment you begin your first salaried job. Divide $1.7 million by 40 and you get $42,400 a year that needs to be contributed. OK, I admit I’m shocked by that myself but bear with me. The truth is that no one even is allowed to contribute that much money every year into an RRSP. Normally, the limit is 18% of earned income and the 2023 maximum RRSP contribution limit is $30,780 (and $31,560 for the 2024 taxation year.) Continue Reading…