Inflation

Inflation

13 Considerations for taking Social Security or CPP benefits early

Deposit Photos

By Connectively and Findependence Hub

Claiming Social Security early can provide immediate income, but it may reduce future benefits and limit financial flexibility. This article examines key factors such as debt, longevity, cash reserves, survivor protection, and income planning.

Insights from financial experts help readers compare options and make more informed timing decisions.

 

 

Preserve Flexibility amid Program Uncertainty

It depends on life stage. Younger clients may want to plan for 75% of benefits on the dollar. While scenarios for pre-retirees can range from reduced benefits to a flat non-inflation-adjusted benefit.

The decision making math remains the same. It’s still too early to tell exactly what will happen with Social Security. Pre-retirees should still consider income needs and longevity over how benefits might change.

To hedge this risk pre-retirees should build flexibility within their retirement plan. Locking income into guaranteed lifetime payments makes it harder to pivot if benefits change. — Samuel Resultan, Financial Consultant, Voyage Wealth Management

Postpone CPP and OAS for Raises

For Canadians who can keep working — or who have other income to bridge the gap — delaying CPP and OAS is one of the few guaranteed raises in retirement. According to Service Canada, CPP grows 0.7% for every month you delay after 65, up to 42% more at 70, and OAS grows 0.6% a month, up to 36% more at 70. Those larger payments are permanent and indexed to inflation, so delaying is really buying longevity insurance: the longer you live, the more it pays. It is not right for everyone. If you need the income now, have health concerns, or qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, starting earlier can make sense. But if you are healthy, still working, and can cover expenses in your late 60s from savings or part-time income, run the numbers on waiting before you default to 65:  65 is just the standard age, not a deadline. — Rohit Dahiya, Founder, LearnLoonie.ca

Keep Cash Reserves for Deferral

The national debt and the Social Security trust fund get lumped together, and they’re separate problems. The trust fund is what matters here. The trustees project it runs short in the early 2030s, and after that incoming payroll taxes still cover roughly 80 per  cent of scheduled benefits. That’s a cut. It isn’t zero.

So run the numbers with the cut baked in. If waiting to 70 still wins at 80 cents on the dollar, and for a healthy married person it usually does, the headline doesn’t change the answer. If a cut comes it would most likely be across the board, which means the person who claimed at 62 takes it on a check that was already about 43% smaller than the age-70 amount.

Claiming early does make sense with poor health, or for the lower earner in a couple whose check won’t become the survivor benefit. Taking it early to invest only works if it actually gets invested. In my experience it usually gets spent.

The better hedge is a cash reserve, so you’re never forced to claim early in a bad year. — Hans Goldstein, Founder, Structured Installment Sales & Exit Tax Planning, Hans Goldstein: Tax & Exit Planning

Stress-Test Income and Build Reserves

  1. My numbers don’t change much. The US$40 trillion national debt is a separate problem from the Social Security trust fund shortfall. The biggest risk to me is that the retirement fund will be exhausted by 2033, at which time about 77% to 80% of scheduled benefits will continue to be paid from current payroll taxes. Any cut to benefits will be proportional, so that a reduced cheque at age 70 is still larger than a reduced cheque at age 62. For Canadians, the biggest risk to the plan is zero. But the CPP is a separately funded plan, and the chief actuary reports that it will be “sustainable” for 75 years.
  1. There is some justification to taking your retirement benefits early, but the reward for waiting past full retirement age to take benefits is significant. Generally, one can earn 8% per year more in guaranteed, inflation-adjusted income by delaying retirement benefits past full retirement age. Waiting to take retirement benefits early is therefore justified by poor health, short family longevity, or no spouse to receive survivor benefits.
  1. Calculate how much you need to have to run the plan at 75% of your projected benefit. If the number is still sustainable, then the rest of the news is irrelevant. Use your 401(k) or RRSP to “bridge” to 70. The effect of lowering your required withdrawals and taxes in retirement will be dramatic. Keep 2-3 years of required retirement spending in cash or very short-term bonds. The worst crash ever will not force you into early retirement. Pay off your mortgage before retirement. The worst fixed cost in retirement is yourself. — Ace Zhuo, CEO | Sales and Marketing, Tech & Finance Expert, TradingFXVPS

Let Longevity guide your Timing

Myth: Since the trust fund is running short anyway, I should “take it early and grow it.”

Social Security claiming age has little to do with markets or investment-return guesses, and a lot to do with longevity and breakeven. Will you, or a spouse who may rely on survivor benefits, live long enough for the delayed retirement credits (the increase you earn by waiting past full retirement age, up to 70) to outweigh the permanent reduction for claiming between 62 and full retirement age? That math does not need an investment-return assumption.

Trust fund shortfall talk changes the risk story, not the formula. According to the SSA trustees, if Congress takes no action, scheduled benefits can be paid until the OASI reserve is used up. After that, ongoing payroll tax revenue covers only a portion of scheduled benefits, and that cut applies to everyone, not just those who delay. So claiming earlier does not create a protected pocket outside the same rules.

Instead of “take it early and grow it,” model these:

  1. Your primary insurance amount at full retirement age, then the reduction or delayed-credit bump at your claim age.
  2. Spousal and survivor benefit interactions.
  3. Taxes and Medicare: other income can make benefits taxable and affect IRMAA, and working before full retirement age can trigger the earnings test.
  4. A cash-flow bridge if you delay, with a tax dry-run on withdrawals from other accounts.

Check your Social Security account often to keep your earnings record clean, and revisit your claiming age when health, work plans, or a spouse’s age changes. — Mehdi Zare CFA, Founder, Bina Capital

Clear Debt before you File

I’m Nick Avila, founder of United Debt Relief. I’ll leave the investment math to planners and add the part most claiming advice skips: your own debt.

First, the cut. The 2026 Social Security Trustees Report projects the combined trust funds will be depleted in 2034, with enough income at that point to pay 83% of scheduled benefits if Congress doesn’t act. That’s a real risk. It’s also a partial cut, not zero, and under current law it would apply to early and late claimers alike. So on its own, I think it’s a weak reason to lock in a permanently smaller check.

And the early-claiming penalty is permanent. For anyone born in 1960 or later, SSA says claiming at 62 pays 70% of your full benefit, and each year you wait past 67 adds 8% until 70.

Where I do see early claiming make sense is Debt. If someone reaches 62 carrying credit card balances, at the 22.15% average rate the Federal Reserve reports for accounts charged interest, and has no other way to pay them down, using early benefits to clear that debt can beat letting it compound for years while they wait. It’s an expensive fix, though. I’d much rather see people clear the cards from earned income in their late 50s and keep the option to delay.

The hedge I wish more people knew about is legal, not financial. The CFPB notes that when benefits arrive by direct deposit and a bank gets a garnishment order, two months of benefits are protected in the account, and Social Security is shielded from most private debt collectors. Government debts are different. Back taxes and defaulted federal student loans can be collected from benefits, and SSA says the IRS can levy up to 15% of payments for overdue federal taxes.

So the best hedge against a smaller cheque is entering retirement without federal tax debt or a defaulted federal student loan, because those can follow you straight into your Social Security payment. Everyone’s situation is different, so run your own numbers with a fee-only planner before you decide when to claim. — Nick Avila, Founder, United Debt Relief

Protect Survivors with Layered Coverage

We need to keep in mind that current warnings refer to reducing the benefits, not their elimination, and waiting to claim typically results in higher payments. Claiming early translates into a permanently lower benefit and introduces market risk, which may not outweigh the guaranteed increase from delaying.

While indeed this approach will work for some individuals, it should be reviewed with a licensed financial advisor case by case rather than applied broadly.

One critical factor families often overlook is the impact on the surviving spouse. After the higher-earning partner passes away, the survivor generally receives the larger Social Security payment. If the higher earner claims early, the surviving spouse may have to rely on a smaller benefit for many years.

Relying on a single income source is not advisable. In my 18 years in the insurance career, I have observed that retirees who feel most secure use multiple layers of protection, such as combining Social Security, savings, and life insurance designed to replace lost spousal income. When one income stream ends due to a spouse’s death, life insurance can help fill that gap, allowing the surviving spouse to remain in the home.

This is not an investment strategy per se, but a way to ensure that benefit reductions, market downturns, or loss of a spouse do not impact the same person all at once. — Jeremy Hewett, President and Chief Executive Officer, AccuQuote

Diversify Globally against Sovereign Risk

With over 20 years advising private equity and multinationals on capital advisory, I evaluate statutory retirement benefits through the lens of sovereign counterparty risk. When a public balance sheet faces severe long-term debt, relying entirely on static future payout models introduces regulatory uncertainty that you cannot control.

There is a sound strategic argument for claiming early if you systematically redirect that cash flow into liquid global equities and high-yield operational investments. Taking the liquidity immediately places capital allocation back under your direct governance rather than leaving it exposed to future legislative restructuring.

A strong hedge against single-country entitlement reform is geographic and jurisdictional diversification. By structuring assets across multiple international corporate entities and foreign-denominated holdings, you insulate your broader wealth plan from the fiscal pressures of any single government. –– Sebastien Gaddini, Principal, Corpiya

Delay Social Security despite Potential Haircuts

The $40 trillion debt headline is genuinely alarming, but let’s separate two distinct issues that often get conflated: the national debt is a real long-term fiscal challenge, while Social Security’s funding shortfall is a separate, more immediate, and more precisely quantifiable problem tied to payroll tax revenue versus benefit obligations, not general federal debt. The Trustees project trust fund depletion around 2033-2034, potentially triggering an automatic 20-25% benefit reduction if Congress takes zero action, which I consider unlikely but not impossible.

Does this change my calculation on delaying to 70? Not dramatically, and here’s the math explaining why. Delaying benefits still guarantees roughly 8% annual increases between full retirement age and 70. Even if benefits get reduced by 20-25% starting in 2034, that reduction would apply proportionally whether you claimed at 62, 67, or 70, since cuts would adjust the overall benefit formula, not penalize delayed claiming specifically. So delaying still produces a larger base benefit before any potential haircut, meaning you’d still come out ahead with delayed claiming even under reduction scenarios, just with a smaller total than originally projected.

The “take it early and invest for growth” argument does have some legitimate mathematical appeal, particularly if you’re disciplined enough to actually invest rather than spend the money, and if market returns cooperate. Historically, an 8-10% average stock market return could theoretically outpace the guaranteed 8% delayed retirement credit.

I recommend three approaches: first, build retirement income diversification beyond Social Security through IRAs, 401(k)s, and if available, guaranteed income products like annuities, reducing total dependence on any single income source. Second, maintain flexibility in your claiming strategy, some financial planners now recommend claiming slightly earlier than 70, perhaps at 67-68, splitting the difference between maximizing benefits and hedging against uncertainty. Third, stay politically engaged and informed, since historically Congress has always intervened before depletion deadlines through payroll tax adjustments or formula changes, meaning the doomsday scenario, while theoretically possible, remains historically improbable given the political consequences of inaction. — Loretta Kilday, DebtCC Spokesperson, Debt Consolidation Care

Model a Reduced Future before Claims

I would not treat the Social Security funding warning as an automatic reason to claim early. I would instead stress-test the retirement plan as though future benefits will be lower, then make the claiming decision based on longevity, cash needs, and risk tolerance. Continue Reading…

Cognitive Decline and your Finances

Image via Pexels: SHVETS production

By Michael J. Wiener

Special to Financial Independence Hub

One of the talking points of financial advisors is that even if right now you’re able to handle your own investments, tax planning, and other aspects of personal finance, you may face cognitive decline later in life.  The implication is that maybe you should get a financial advisor now before it’s too late.

The challenge here is that many people who hold themselves out as financial advisors are little more than sellers of expensive mutual funds.  Some might even be inclined to take advantage of your cognitive decline to churn your account and generate excess fees.

What you may need is a good financial advisor.  Some financial advisors are excellent.  They range from those who charge by the hour for “Advice Only” to those who manage your investments directly for you.  However, if you’re in cognitive decline, it won’t help to just get the occasional portfolio checkup.  The advisor would have to directly manage your investments.  But it’s hard to get this type of advisor without at least a million dollars invested.

If you do meet an advisor’s asset threshold, you’re still faced with the dilemma of determining whether you’ve found a good advisor.  One strategy is to reduce the size of the problem.  The more guaranteed income you have, the less important your investments become.  If you or an advisor mangle your investments, having a higher guaranteed income will be valuable.

Here are three possible ways to increase retirement income:

1.) Delay the start of CPP and OAS

The formula for increasing CPP and OAS benefits if you delay their start is quite generous.  Any delay up to age 70 gives you more money per month.  The fact that these benefits are indexed to inflation is very valuable.

2.) Buy an annuity

Typically annuities are not indexed at all, but you can get one whose payments increase annually by a fixed percentage, such as 2%.  Buying annuities isn’t as beneficial as delaying CPP and OAS, but it does create more guaranteed income to protect you from yourself in the case of cognitive decline.

To reduce inflation risk, you could wait until later in life (but not too late!) to buy an annuity.  One strategy might be to buy more than one annuity at different ages.

3.) Work somewhere that offers a defined-benefit pension

This option is certainly more extreme than the other two, particularly if you would have to change careers.  But if it’s something you don’t mind doing, a defined-benefit pension takes away many retirement worries.

Family help

Another alternative to getting a financial advisor is to get help from younger family members.  I’ve gone to a lot of trouble to learn how to invest, manage taxes, and run the rest of my personal finances.  I’ve been passing this knowledge along to my sons in small steps.

A time will come when I’ll start showing them how my finances work in preparation for when they might have to start helping.  This feels natural for me, because once my wife and I are gone, they’ll get what’s left anyway.

Not everyone has family members whose intelligence and morals they trust enough for this kind of help.  But if you do, they can help protect your finances from your mistakes.

The financial advisor path

A good financial advisor is likely to benefit you most when family assets are complex.  But you still have the challenge of figuring out whether a financial advisor is good and honest.  I feel like I have the knowledge to judge an advisor’s competence, but you almost have to know how to do it yourself to be able to judge an advisor. Continue Reading…

Retirement Spending: Why Spending your Savings is the Hardest Part of Retirement

AlainGuillot.com, via ChatGPT

By Alain Guillot

Special to Financial Independence Hub

I have an unusual retirement problem. I have more money than I’ll probably ever spend.

For most of my adult life, retirement spending was never something I worried about. Saving was.

Like millions of people, I spent decades training myself to save every extra dollar. I invested consistently, avoided unnecessary purchases, resisted lifestyle inflation, and watched my retirement accounts grow year after year.

Today, at 59 years old, I am financially independent.

Ironically, I’ve discovered that spending money is far more difficult than earning or saving it.

I don’t need to work another day in my life, yet I continue working because I genuinely enjoy what I do and I don’t know what to do with myself if I don’t have this daily activity called work. Meanwhile my investments continue to grow faster than I can realistically spend them.

The problem isn’t that I don’t have enough money.

The problem is that I no longer know how to spend it.

And it turns out I’m far from alone.

Retirement Spending is Harder than Saving

A recent Corebridge Financial survey found something surprising.

  • Fewer than one third of retirees feel comfortable withdrawing money from their retirement savings.
  • Seven out of ten retirees say it’s very important that their nest egg never shrinks.
  • Thirty-eight per cent admit they deliberately avoid spending money simply to preserve their savings.

Think about that.

People spent forty years saving for retirement…

… and once retirement finally arrives, many refuse to spend the money they worked so hard to accumulate.

That seems irrational.

Until you realize we’ve spent our entire lives being rewarded for saving.

We train ourselves to Accumulate, not Decumulate

Every paycheque teaches us the same lesson.

Save more.
Invest more.
Increase your net worth.
Watch the graph go up.

Personal finance books celebrate growing investment balances.

Financial news celebrates higher account values.

Net worth becomes the scoreboard.

Then retirement arrives and suddenly we’re expected to reverse decades of conditioning.

Instead of accumulating wealth, we’re supposed to slowly spend it.

Psychologically, that’s an enormous shift.

For many retirees, watching their investment account decline — even if it’s exactly according to plan — feels like failure.

My Retirement Spending Problem

When I imagined retirement in my Twenties, I assumed I would eventually spend money on expensive things:

A luxury car.

A larger house.

Designer clothes.

Fine dining every night.

None of that happened.

I live in Montreal, where owning a car would mostly be an inconvenience.

I have a comfortable apartment that suits me perfectly.

My wardrobe is simple. A good polo shirt lasts for years.

My favorite hobby is salsa dancing, and the best dance floor in the city is … free.

I eat out regularly, but because my cholesterol is high, my doctor has encouraged me to follow a mostly plant-based diet. Ironically, eating more healthily often costs less than dining out. And when I go out to eat, I go to small neighborhood restaurants to encourage the local owners. The waiters know me, the owners know me, and I feel at home.

I already take two international vacations every year.

Beyond that, I honestly don’t know what else I need.

The result?

My portfolio keeps growing because my spending simply hasn’t caught up with my savings.

Retirement Spending doesn’t mean Spending Carelessly

Many people hear this discussion and think the solution is simple:

“Just buy more stuff.”

I disagree completely.

Financial freedom isn’t permission to become a reckless consumer.

It’s permission to make choices based on happiness rather than necessity.

The goal isn’t to maximize spending.

The goal is to maximize fulfillment.

Sometimes that means spending more.

Sometimes it means spending exactly the same while feeling less guilty about it.

Better ways to Practice Retirement Spending

If you’ve accumulated more than you’ll likely spend, consider investing in experiences rather than possessions.

Some ideas include: Continue Reading…

What Successful Investing and The Great Gretzky have In common

Image courtesy Outcome/Shutterstock

By Noah Solomon,

Special to Financial Independence Hub

It’s been a long

A long time comin’, but I know

A change gon’ come

Oh yes, it will  

  • A Change Is Gonna Come, by Sam Cooke

Skate where the Puck is Going, not where it’s Been

Nicknamed “the Great One,” Wayne Gretzky has been called the best hockey player ever. Despite Gretzky’s unimpressive size and strength, his intelligence, stamina, and reading of the game were unrivaled. Gretzky himself credited much of his success to advice he received from his father as a young boy, which was to “skate where the puck’s going, not where it’s been.”

As is the case with the Great One, superior investment results stem in large part from anticipating future developments rather than simply positioning portfolios based on the past or current environment. To be clear, I am not referring to market timing, nor am I referring to predicting earnings, economic growth, inflation, or interest rates over the next quarter or year. As stated in past newsletters, such endeavours are highly unlikely to result in outperformance.

Rather, I am referring to significant changes in the investment landscape that (1) will likely persist for the next several years and (2) present both the risk of significant underperformance and the opportunity for material outperformance, depending on how one’s portfolio is positioned.

The most Powerful Force in Markets

Reversion to the mean is perhaps the most powerful force in markets: periods of higher-than-normal returns have been followed by periods of subpar returns, and vice versa. The postwar expansion and steady market gains of the late 1940s and 1950s were followed by stagflation and choppy, flat returns in the 1960s and 1970s. In similar fashion, the great bull run of the 1980s and 1990s ushered in the lost decade of the 2000s, when stocks delivered negative-to-flat returns.

This pattern is not coincidental but rather is firmly rooted in behavioural economics. For as long as modern markets have existed, people have overreacted, both in good times and bad. Following several years of strong economic and earnings growth, investors have repeatedly become overconfident that the proverbial party will continue indefinitely, causing stock prices to rise at a faster pace than earnings and multiples to reach unsustainable levels. At the other end of the spectrum, during periods of recession when earnings either decelerate or contract, widespread despondency morphs into predictions of eternal darkness with no possibility of improvement, resulting in lower than reasonable earnings expectations, multiple contraction, and fire sale asset prices.

The longer and stronger the expansion, the more irrationally exuberant people become, and the longer and darker the recession, the more illogically pessimism gets entrenched. Ironically, the most optimistic extrapolations reach a crescendo when they are least likely to be realized, and the most pessimistic ones become most widespread when they should be least so. The exact anatomy and causes of different booms and busts change from cycle to cycle, but the overall picture has remained tragically consistent. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Markets have NOT been Normal

Investors today have grown accustomed to well-above-average returns. However, as the following table demonstrates, the past ten years have been highly anomalous from a historical standpoint.

Equity Market Returns: A Longer-term Perspective

 

Notwithstanding the daunting historical pattern of mean reversion, the post-global-financial-crisis environment has been highly supportive of equities. Increased globalization, moderate inflation, and low interest rates supported strong earnings growth and expanding valuation multiples, which in turn spurred above-average returns.

In contrast, today’s landscape is marred by trade frictions, stubborn inflation, ballooning sovereign debt levels, and rising interest rates. Importantly, these structural headwinds for earnings growth stand in sharp contrast to today’s elevated valuations, with U.S., Canadian, and European indexes all standing in the top fifth of their historical valuation ranges.

I have no idea whether markets will rise or fall over the near-to-medium term, let alone exactly when or by how much. However, given the historically inverse relationship between starting valuations and forward, ten-year returns, I am confident that average returns over the next ten years will likely be lower than long-term averages, and perhaps meaningfully so. History seems primed to repeat itself, if not rhyme.

Estimating returns requires sophisticated assumptions, and methodologies used to do so vary across asset managers. Yet, despite these differences, a common theme emerges: most asset managers forecast low future equity returns.

Annualized Equity Return Forecasts: Next 10 Years

 

What REALLY drives the Bus

It goes without saying that a portfolio’s individual stock holdings and sector weights are important determinants of its return. However, there is more than meets the eye with respect to performance attribution. Continue Reading…

The alternative to the 4% Rule isn’t a different number. It’s a different mechanism.

By Stefano Starkel

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Ask for an alternative to the 4% Rule and most people offer you 3.5%, or 5%, or a dynamic band. Those answer the wrong question. The rule’s most important feature isn’t the number: it’s the assumption buried in its first sentence.

William Bengen’s 1994 study said this: Withdraw about 4% in year one, adjust that dollar amount for inflation, and across the worst U.S. sequences he tested no portfolio was exhausted before 33 years. He has revised it upward since: to roughly 4.7% in his 2025 book. The number was never the fragile part.

Notice how you get the cash. You sell. The 4% Rule is a selling rule, and most Retirement calculators inherit that frame: the portfolio is the only lever, drawing it down the only way to reach it. So “what’s the alternative” is really two questions: a smarter way to size withdrawals, or not drawing the pile down at all?

Why the number isn’t the weak point

The fragile part of a fixed-withdrawal plan is Sequence-of-Returns risk. I run a leveraged, income-oriented book myself, and I’ve watched how brutally the order matters.

Round numbers: A $1,900,000 portfolio. $76,000 withdrawn at the start of each year, held flat, then that year’s return applied. (The real rule inflates the withdrawal; flat isolates the sequence effect, and understates the damage.) Two retirees, same three returns, opposite order.

Same returns, same withdrawals, and B finishes about $80,000 behind: a gap that compounds with every subsequent return. The reason sits in year two: B took that $76,000 from a portfolio already down to $1.28M, a 6.0% bite against A’s 3.5%. Selling a fixed amount into weakness turns a paper dip into spent-and-gone principal. Over a full retirement, that early-sequence damage is what empties portfolios: not the headline rate.

Changing the mechanism, and what it costs

One family keeps selling, but flexibly: guardrails soften Sequence Risk at the cost of variable income. Still decumulation.

The other changes the mechanism: borrow against the portfolio rather than sell it, so the assets stay invested and nothing is forced to be realised in a downturn. This is what people mean when they say the wealthy never sell. It is not a free lunch : and for a Canadian reader, considerably less free than the American version.

The loan is callable. FINRA’s mandated margin disclosure is blunt: the firm can sell your securities without contacting you, you don’t choose which ones, and you aren’t entitled to extra time. Canada is no gentler: TD Direct Investing tells clients it may sell holdings “potentially without any prior notice,” and decide which. That is the bottom-of-the-market sale the strategy exists to avoid, arriving on the broker’s schedule. Continue Reading…