Should CPP start at 67?

[Barquentine]

People are living longer healthier lives. When the CPP started, people collected it for much shorter periods.

I haven't done the research but I'm pretty sure the input/payout formula has changed quite a bit.

People are more educated on the need to save for retirement and have more options now - RRSP, TFSA, etc...

Raising the starting age to 67 would surely be a huge cost saving for us.

People could still take it 5 years early (at age 62, and at a lesser monthly rate) even while they're still working. (I did, but kept working and contributing to age 68)

People would still have the option of continuing to work.

I would do it in 2 steps, 66 in 2 years, and 67 2 or 3 years after that.

I'm sure somebody has done the math on this.

And yes, I know a lot of people will push back on this idea.

[Shady]

Retirement programs should definitely be tied to life expectancy.

[herbie]

Why not make it 80? Think of the "savings" if you didn't have to replace workers. You could remain un/under employed until you were 30.

That would go over well, wouldn't it?
Maybe we could get rid of stats, maternity, unions, 40 hour weeks and paid vacations like the USA because every idea out of that dump is just so good.

[Nefarious Banana]

4 hours ago, herbie said:

Why not make it 80? Think of the "savings" if you didn't have to replace workers. You could remain un/under employed until you were 30.

That would go over well, wouldn't it?
Maybe we could get rid of stats, maternity, unions, 40 hour weeks and paid vacations like the USA because every idea out of that dump is just so good.

What's your suggestion/solution to the OP's query?

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, herbie said:

Why not make it 80? Think of the "savings" if you didn't have to replace workers. You could remain un/under employed until you were 30.

That would go over well, wouldn't it?
Maybe we could get rid of stats, maternity, unions, 40 hour weeks and paid vacations like the USA because every idea out of that dump is just so good.

So in other words you don't have an intelligent opinion on the subject.

In fact when it was introduced and up till about the 60s retirement age was 70 as far as the government was concerned. Then it was lowered to 65.

Meanwhile during that same stretch of time life expectancy continued to grow:

20th Century Improvements

• By 1900, life expectancy had risen to 47.6 years, as healthcare and living conditions began to improve. 
• Between 1920 and 2011, life expectancy at birth for men increased from 58.8 years to 79.3 years, while for women, it rose from 60.6 years to 83.6 years. 
   
• A significant portion of the gains in life expectancy occurred between 1921 and 1951, primarily due to reductions in infant mortality and deaths from infectious diseases. 

   

   

• By 2011, life expectancy at birth had reached 81.7 years, with a notable increase of 24.6 years since 1921. 

   
• As of 2020, life expectancy in Canada was approximately 82.2 years, with ongoing improvements attributed to advancements in healthcare and lifestyle changes. 

   

  2

So we live longer, and yet we start retirement benefits sooner.

In this day and age many people are working past 65. Unfortunately we should probably be restarting retirement benefits closer to 67 than 65. Today's 65 year old is still for the most part fit and healthy and does not need to be cared for the same way they did in the 1930s or 40s.

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, Barquentine said:

People are more educated on the need to save for retirement and have more options now - RRSP, TFSA, etc...

Still, if I recall correctly only some 25% of workers can afford these options. This could change if wages were higher or better yet tax free, I'm a big fan of replacing all forms of tax on productivity with a progressive consumption tax myself.

Workers in physically demanding occupations such as those that usually thrash your body to the extent that working past or even up to the age 60 is a real struggle. Making these work until they're 68 may be a completely unrealistic option.

Rigging rats on a logging crew or deck monkeys on a boat will likely move up to the point they're running machines or boats and usually earning a lot more but not everyone is cut out for that either.

I suppose the government would have to make allowances for this and let workers who simply aren't fit to work any longer start collecting CPP earlier.  I suspect this would lead to situations similar to the ridiculous, onerous and often fruitless process injured workers sometimes go thru to justify compensation. There are real horror stories out there, on par with the worst landlord/renter dispute we hear of.

I'm one of the lucky ones but I know quite a few old working stiffs I worked with over years that worked just as hard as me and they're suffering.

There were employers back in the day who drove guys to hard and of course working hard and showing interest could pay off too. Trying to keep up with the drivers could be just as hard on someone as being driven to hard.

In my case I was advised to start collecting at age 60 because I have an alien stirring in my chest (a heart defect I was born with) and that I might not get to enjoy my pension if I'd waited. That said I'm 68, still working, and earning at the top of my game. I have a deck monkey to keep up with the physical work and they're been trained to perform single foot chest compressions while steering the boat home should I keel over.

Edited September 28, 2025 by eyeball

[LinkSoul60]

12 hours ago, Barquentine said:

People are living longer healthier lives. When the CPP started, people collected it for much shorter periods.

I haven't done the research but I'm pretty sure the input/payout formula has changed quite a bit.

People are more educated on the need to save for retirement and have more options now - RRSP, TFSA, etc...

Raising the starting age to 67 would surely be a huge cost saving for us.

People could still take it 5 years early (at age 62, and at a lesser monthly rate) even while they're still working. (I did, but kept working and contributing to age 68)

People would still have the option of continuing to work.

I would do it in 2 steps, 66 in 2 years, and 67 2 or 3 years after that.

I'm sure somebody has done the math on this.

And yes, I know a lot of people will push back on this idea.

I can definitely see the eligible age increasing. Not sure about CPP but OAS for sure. Remember Harper announced in 2012 that the retirement age was changing to 67 in 2023 but that was reversed back to 65 by Trudeau in 2016. Denmark recently passed legislation to push the current retirement age of 67 to 68 in 2030, 69 in 2035, and 70 in 2040.

I can see OAS being a larger discussion though simply because everyone is eligible and as you mention we're living longer.  CPP is your money that's been invested so no concern for that Plans solvency or sustainability. OAS is funded through government tax revenue so see that being more of a discussion when aligning the eligible age of being paid that to how much longer we're living.

[Barquentine]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Still, if I recall correctly only some 25% of workers can afford these options. This could change if wages were higher or better yet tax free, I'm a big fan of replacing all forms of tax on productivity with a progressive consumption tax myself.

Workers in physically demanding occupations such as those that usually thrash your body to the extent that working past or even up to the age 60 is a real struggle. Making these work until they're 68 may be a completely unrealistic option.

But poorer workers pay a higher percentage of their pay if it's just a consumption tax, unless it is VERY progressive. And wages have risen in the trades, should go higher with the shortages of qualified people.

And yeah, older workers have problems with heavy physical work. Nice if they can move into jobs in office, warehouse, delivery ... and more of the heavy work is being done with machines.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

But poorer workers pay a higher percentage of their pay if it's just a consumption tax, unless it is VERY progressive. And wages have risen in the trades, should go higher with the shortages of qualified people.

And yeah, older workers have problems with heavy physical work. Nice if they can move into jobs in office, warehouse, delivery ... and more of the heavy work is being done with machines.

Sure but Any discussion about wages or increases must be examined specifically alongside inflation. 

I'm sure we agree fhat if wages go up 5 percent but inflation goes up 10 percent then in fact real purchasing power has gone down. 

And inflation is tricky to look at.  The "national inflation rate" is not really applicable to most people directly, because the 'basket of goods' excludes or minimizes things that are important to the consumer and some items have a much larger impact.  Housing inflation or food inflation for example will increase costs to the average person more than something more controllable like the cost of movie tickets. And because food and shelter is one of the largest expenses an increase there skews the overall impact compared to soemething like cothing or even fuel.  If gas goes up 5 percent and housing 10 the average might be 7 but if housing is 33 percent of a person's budget and gas is  10 percent then their 'felt' inflation is much higher. 

You are correct that the answer for physical workers is to transition into managerial positions or office work or even training positions or employer positions. 

 

[I am Groot]

On 9/27/2025 at 4:07 PM, herbie said:

Why not make it 80? Think of the "savings" if you didn't have to replace workers. You could remain un/under employed until you were 30.

That would go over well, wouldn't it?
Maybe we could get rid of stats, maternity, unions, 40 hour weeks and paid vacations like the USA because every idea out of that dump is just so good.

I would suggest to you that if Denmark is doing it, this isn't just an idea straight out of the evil corporatist neocon handbook.

Life expectancy has risen ten years since the introduction of the CPP. A friend of mine plans to retire at 55. Presuming they live to 86- a not unreasonable presumption - they would have spent just as much time retired as they spent working. I'm not sure this society can function like that.

I semi-retired at about 52, but I can make a fairly high income off of part-time, at-home work. Few can.

[TreeBeard]

Lower it to 55 to make room for younger folks to have more employment opportunities and as a step to implementing a Universal Basic Income program.  

[herbie]

Oh gee, some other country is doing it so we MUST consider it?
What reason is there to even consider the issue? The country can 'save' by taking shit away from certain people.
Won't be "us" because we already collected it, right?

Another touted 'conservative' policy because its screwing someone else.

[I am Groot]

9 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh gee, some other country is doing it so we MUST consider it?

No, merely eliminating your cliche'd reason to oppose it.

This was recommended years ago by the C.D. Howe Institute. It's why Harper raised the retirement age to 67. 

 

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Lower it to 55 to make room for younger folks to have more employment opportunities and as a step to implementing a Universal Basic Income program.  

Raise it to 90 so that we can be sure the young people have lots of mentors to help them learn. 

I mean if we're just saying mindless stupid stuff why not. 

[I am Groot]

30 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh gee, some other country is doing it so we MUST consider it?

No, merely eliminating your cliche'd reason to oppose it.

This was recommended years ago by the C.D. Howe Institute. It's why Harper raised the retirement age to 67. 

It was recommended again by them earlier this year.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/atlantic/article/canada-should-raise-retirement-age-to-67-to-address-labour-shortages-report/

 

Edited September 29, 2025 by I am Groot

[Nationalist]

Just another good fckin by Canada.

[herbie]

22 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

This was recommended years ago by the C.D. Howe Institute. It's why Harper raised the retirement age to 67. 

And ditched when govt had the guts to increase contributions.
And then to increase the number of people paying into it, but you didn't like immigration either. So asides from reducing every benefit you have in this country, just how do you plan to do things?
DO you even comprehend if your platform is reducing and taking things away, you'll never get elected? Or just copy our Southern neighbour's platform and lie through your teeth then stab the electorate in the back once in power?

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, herbie said:

And ditched when govt had the guts to increase contributions. once in power?

When they pandered to certain voters despite the fact they knew it would cause harm you mean

And the problem is immigration didn't increase the number of paying it it increased the number of people who would be taking it but the average wage was smaller so we actually collected less money from those people

And now we can't afford it and our economy is in the trash and our debt is insanely High

You're extremely proud of something that was obviously a failure

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

And ditched when govt had the guts to increase contributions.

LOL. You call it courage to decrease the retirement age and not to push it back!? This is something they've had riots over in other countries! Do you think this increased Harper's popularity with anyone, much less the middle-aged and older people who are the mainstay of elections?

2 hours ago, herbie said:

And then to increase the number of people paying into it, but you didn't like immigration either.

I fail to see how letting in a lot of poor people is going to enrich this country. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

2 hours ago, herbie said:

So asides from reducing every benefit you have in this country, just how do you plan to do things?

Cut off the billions in climate spending. Cut off all the money going to every advocacy, lobby, and activist group in Canada, and all the 'scientific studies' for gender rice in Vietnam or whatever, and all the billions going to third-world dictatorships to pad their Swiss bank accounts. Cut huge numbers of regulations and then the bureaucrats who look after those regulations. Especially slash restrictions on developing and selling our natural resources abroad. Modernize our ports, and lay off most of the dockyard workers, drive more pipelines to both coasts.

2 hours ago, herbie said:

DO you even comprehend if your platform is reducing and taking things away, you'll never get elected? 

Ahh, there we have it. The way to get elected is to keep promising things that we can't afford. The problem is that eventually we come to the point where nobody will loan us any money anymore. What do we do then?

Edited September 29, 2025 by I am Groot

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I fail to see how letting in a lot of poor people is going to enrich this country. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

We have a labour shortage, we're not having as many kids and we need more people to make the economy grow to pay taxes and keep things like the CPP/OAS etc going. 

Personally I think we should be looking at the other end of the spectrum to tax myself, especially if we don't want more people coming to Canada.

Yes I've heard we'll lose our 1-3% if we do that so all I can say is...exit tax. You didn't build that wealth, it was made for you by other people. You should have paid them more so we wouldn't all be in this pickle.

WTF were people thinking would happen?

[I am Groot]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

We have a labour shortage,

No, we do not. In fact, we have a high and rising unemployment rate, especially among youths.

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

we're not having as many kids

You think young people not being able to get secure jobs at a decent salary and not able to afford housing might have something to do with that?

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

and we need more people to make the economy grow to pay taxes and keep things like the CPP/OAS etc going. 

Nonsense. Poor people are a loss to the taxpayers, not paying more than a fraction of what they use in government services.

[LinkSoul60]

21 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

No, we do not. In fact, we have a high and rising unemployment rate, especially among youths.

Yes we do.  Specifically in trades, healthcare, agriculture, and transportation....not student jobs at Tim Hortons.

24 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

You think young people not being able to get secure jobs at a decent salary and not able to afford housing might have something to do with that?

Our economy is slow.  Student/younger people are the first to be affected with a slow down of hiring.

25 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Nonsense. Poor people are a loss to the taxpayers, not paying more than a fraction of what they use in government services.

If you mean CPP for no income/low newcomers to Canada they have no impact.  You only get from CPP what you paid into it.  If you never worked you get nothing.  If you've contributed little you get little.  

[Politics1990]

it should be 60 or 55 to be honest.   anywone raising it to 67 is a instant no vote

[Barquentine]

18 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Lower it to 55 to make room for younger folks to have more employment opportunities

And pay everybody CPP and OAS for 30-40 years?

[LinkSoul60]

11 minutes ago, Politics1990 said:

it should be 60 or 55 to be honest.   anywone raising it to 67 is a instant no vote

Why, and who is going to pay for those programs after 'retiring' at that early of an age?