Unlocking Locked in Pension's ( LIF, LIRF, LIRA )

[geoffrey]

Why do you ask?

Because the reason the government gives favourable tax breaks to locked-in plans is to protect the social safety net from seniors spending all their cash and outliving their savings. That's a big burden when they are dying, and it doesn't look good to have them out in the streets.

If you want to unlock your pension, you should lose all tax benefits you've received through the entire process, all withheld upon the withdrawl. Could be 50% of your pension in some cases. Who knows.

No one has the reason to spend 100% of their pension plan tomorrow. They should budget ahead and not have these problems. I can see maybe 5%. Past that, too bad. Should have planned better.

These are people that want to have their cake and eat it too. You can't have it both ways, either it's locked in and you get the benefits, or it's not. But you shouldn't be expecting to have the taxpayer risk changing the game half way through.

Have you followed the activities of pension plans over the last 50 years?

Yes I have. What aspect are you concerned about?

[Bill C]

Hi Geoffrey:

I see that you are from Calgary. That is in the province that has just recently unlocked locked-in pensions for their citizens 50% and I might add at 50 years of age.

I guess in your opinion as long as it is unlocked in your province .There is no need for the other provinces to be treated equal.

Bill C

[Bill C]

Anna's Letter in the Post

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...20-e2de80f523cf

Truly shackled

Financial Post

Published: Saturday, March 31, 2007

Re: Unlock LIRAs, Jack Mintz, March 27

Those having locked-in funds are truly shackled. At age 58, I can access merely 6% of my LIF fund. Those having RRSPs or group RRSPs can access their funds as life and need dictate. We take the risk in investing and should be able to access the proceeds, unfettered as in an RRSP.

Pension legislation, both provincially and particularly federally with regard to locked-in funds, must be radically changed. The 25% unlocking in the recent Ontario budget is totally unacceptable.

Ontarians should have their funds fully unlocked, 100%, as the MPPs in 1999 via Bill 27 generously unlocked theirs, to the exclusion of every other Ontario resident.

We are perfectly capable of managing our retirement income and don't need the nanny state to protect nor dictate to us. Pension legislation overall is outmoded, outdated and in need of a major overhaul.

Anna Pollock, Oakville, Ont.

[geoffrey]

Hi Geoffrey:

I see that you are from Calgary. That is in the province that has just recently unlocked locked-in pensions for their citizens 50% and I might add at 50 years of age.

I guess in your opinion as long as it is unlocked in your province .There is no need for the other provinces to be treated equal.

Bill C

I strongly disagree with my province's position on the matter.

[Bill C]

Hi:

I am just letting everybody know that is interested. I have sent in the online petition to the Premier and Finance minister of Ontario. I also sent the petition to every MPP in Ontario plus 60 newspapers across the province.

I am still looking for more signatures at http://www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html

I will be sending it in again.

If you have a story to tell how the locking of these pensions affected you or you just want to send a message that you want these pensions unlocked.

You can put it in the online petition and I will make sure that every MPP & news paper Editor in Ontario See's it or You can mail it personally to the following people.

Ontario Liberals said it will unlock 25% in 2008 if they are still here.

We say that is not enough. When a person considers that Saskatchewan unlocked 100% for their people.

We need to let all party's know that we all want 100%. Nothing less.

This is all our own money . Not government money to keep themselves in perks.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty

[email protected]

Hon. Greg Sorbara

[email protected]

Howard Hampton

[email protected]

John Tory

[email protected]

Robert W Runciman

[email protected]

Thank You Bill Costello

[Bill C]

Hi : This is a article printed in the Kitchener Waterloo Record .

PENSION PREDICAMENT

Locked-in pensions can block investors from accessing their own nest eggs

ROSE SIMONE

(Apr 21, 2007)

By the time Bill Nafziger retired after 37 years at Krug Inc. in Kitchener, he had a nice nest egg built up in his pension plan.

But three years later, at age 64, Nafziger, is fighting for the right to do what he wants with his own money.

The Milverton resident has joined CARP, also known as the Canada's Association for the 50-Plus, in lobbying the provincial government to give pensioners the right to withdraw money in what are commonly known as "locked-in" funds.

Locked-in pension funds are like regular RRSPs, but they are much more restrictive because they have maximums on how much money a person can withdraw.

With the principal in his defined contribution pension plan "locked in," Nafziger says he probably will die without being able to access the bulk of the pension money he worked for.

He adds that after he and his wife both die, whatever is left in the fund will to their estate and get taxed as revenue in one year, so the "tax man" will get a bigger bite of it.

"It's completely illogical," he says. "There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to unlock that money, and use it for yourself and your wife while you are living," Nafziger says.

No one knows how many people in Canada have money in locked-in accounts. The Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which is responsible for regulating pensions in this province, says it doesn't keep track of how many there are.

Jack Mintz, a University of Toronto business economics professor who himself has pension money in a locked-in fund from when he left Queens University, says it affects millions of people in Canada.

It includes people like Mintz who took their money out of a group pension plan when they went to work for another employer, as well as people like Nafziger who have individual pension plans rather than employer-administered group plans in which cheques are cut each month for retirees.

Under the financial services commission rules, if pension money isn't being managed by an employer pension fund, or by an insurance company that pays out a monthly income from a life annuity, it has to go into a "locked-in" account to provide a regular income over the years of retirement.

The amount a person can take out in each year after retirement is capped at a small percentage of what is in the fund. For example, at age 62, a person can take seven per cent of what's in the fund. That goes up gradually, to 11.9 per cent at age 79.

Nafziger says this means if he dies at around the age of 79, which is the age when the average Canadian man dies, two-thirds of his money would still be in the locked in fund.

As an industrial engineering manager at Krug, Nafziger tucked away more than $150,000 in his pension fund through personal and employer contributions over the years.

He knows he has to pay taxes on the money he takes out each year so he has no intention of withdrawing his entire retirement fund in one year.

But he says he should be able to enjoy more of the benefits of that money now that he is in a lower income tax bracket compared to when he worked for the office furniture manufacturer.

If the bulk of the money is left to his estate, governments will take a larger share of the funds in taxes, he says.

"If I die at the age of the average man in Ontario, there would still be about $100,000 left in that estate when it is unlocked," he says. "If I could take it out over the next 20 or 30 years in small amounts, I could realize a savings in income tax because I am taking it out at a lower income. But you are not allowed to take significant amounts all the way along."

CARP agrees with him. It is lobbying Ontario to follow the lead of Saskatchewan, which allows people to transfer all of their locked-in funds to registered retirement income funds that don't have maximum payout rules.

In its most recent budget, Ontario announced a provision, to take effect next year, that will allow for a "one time unlocking" of 25 per cent of the money in a locked-in fund.

Scott Blodgett, a spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Finance, says the government is trying to "balance the twin goals" of giving seniors more flexibility while still ensuring that there is a steady stream of income through retirement.

In doing that, Ontario will become one of four provinces that allows partial unlocking of funds, he says.

But Bill Gleberzon, a director of government relations for CARP, says that's not good enough. "Our position is that this is an insult," he says.

The government's rationale for not allowing full unlocking appears to be based on the fear that pensioners will be irresponsible and spend all the money in one year, he says.

But Gleberzon says there is no evidence people would do that, and there is a huge tax penalty if they do.

"This is just outmoded paternalism that should not exist in the 21st century," he says.

Retirees can apply to the financial services commission to unlock their money for health reasons or financial hardship. But people who have more than $17,480 in locked-in accounts also have to pay the commission a fee of $200 to $600 if they succeed.

"So they have to pay to access their own money," Gleberzon says.

About 30,000 people applied to unlock their money between 2003 and 2006, and only 52 were turned down, says Gleberzon. If almost everyone who applies is allowed to unlock anyway, why should people have to go through this costly bureaucratic process in the first place, he says.

Gleberzon says CARP will continue to lobby the provincial government and make locked in pensions an election issue if necessary. He says it is particularly galling to pensioners who are lobbying for unlocking that in 1999, the Mike Harris-led provincial government passed legislation that allowed 61 MPPs to unlock their pensions early and roll their money into RRSPs.

Gleberzon stresses that it is a matter of giving people access to their own money.

Nafziger agrees. "It's our money. It should be our decision what to do with it, not the government's decision."

[email protected]

((((There needs to be a correction where it states)))) " But people who have (((more))) than $17,480 in locked-in accounts "

It should read.

Retirees can apply to the financial services commission to unlock their money for health reasons or financial hardship. But people who have (((less))) than $17,480. or do not have a income of more then $29,133. in locked-in accounts also have to pay the commission a fee of $200 to $600 if they succeed

[Bill C]

Hi This is a letter sent to John Tory

Dear Mr. Tory,

My name is Grant Fleury. I am a resident of Sudbury.

I sent you a personal email back on Jan 17, 2007 and have not received

a reply or acknowledgement.

As indicated in that previous email, I have been lobbying the

provincial government to eliminate the locks from locked-in pensions

since 2004 when I discovered the limits to access of my own pension

money when I qualified to retire. I have since written articles in

local newspapers in Ontario and have been recently interviewed on the

CBC in the past few months regarding the unrealistic limits of the

current regulations of the PBA and of the discrimination of Bill 27 in

1999. Others in Ontario have also been working diligently to inform the

public of the truth and senseless arbitrary bureaucracy surrounding the

administration of locked-in pensions.

The recent announcement regarding amendments to the Pension Benefits

Act of Ontario by the Liberal government including a 25% unlocking

option, although positive steps in the right direction, do not go near

far enough to address the inequity of the two distinct classes of

citizens that were essentially created by the former Progressive

Conservative party.

As you are very well aware, Bill 27 (1999) and it's infamous

amendments, including the creation of a special exclusive group of 61

MPP's allowing a full transfer of the commuted value of their former

terminated "gold plated" pension plan to a group RRSP format bypassing

all the rules, regulations and limitations, continue to plague every

other ordinary Ontarian. Restrictions and limitations that continue to

restrict their ability to choose the level and style of retirement as

often dictated by conditions other than the "six conditions of

desperate hardship" amendments added in 2002 by the former ruling PC

party.

I agree that all pension ear-marked money should be off-limits until

the normal retirement age or 55 is reached, since it is intended for

retirement.

I agree that there may be a large number of people in the province that

do not have the financial knowledge to deal with their designated

pension assets. We have financial advisors for that purpose, just as we

have plumbers for plumbing and builders for building.

However, rather than assuming we are all inept in that area, unlike the

belief your previous PC party and the current Liberal party have of

themselves, you should adopt a positive approach of providing an

education for those that may stray instead of painting all Ontarians as

financially irresponsible. Maintaining such an attitude as this is

again shear arrogance on any level in any government.

I disagree, as supported by Statistics Canada, with the unrealistic age

of 90 used in calculating the yearly payment for these locked-in

pensions. The facts are simple - less than 1/2 of 1% live till 90. Life

expectancy is 77.2 years, not 90! Pick up any newspaper and read the

obituaries if there is any doubt.

I agree with the Saskatchewan government's lead to 100% unlock all

locked-in pensions for their residents in April of 2002 providing

retirees with more flexibility in managing their own financial affairs.

Your former PC party was ahead of their time in 1999 and had already

positively accomplished this with the grave exception that it was done

selfishly, exclusively and quietly, for all "members only" of the

legislature.

Moreover and more importantly, regardless of any of the above, and as a

direct result of the deceit and inequity of Bill 27, the basic

principle of equality for all Ontarians was broken!

This is why I, and all the other groups and organizations in Ontario,

such as CARP, are insisting on 100% equality and nothing less. If it's

good for 61, it's good for the estimated million others in Ontario who

have locked-in pensions in one form or another.

Every life is as important as the next, as is every law equally applied

for every citizen. The foundation of any true democracy is equality for

all members in it's society.

If that special deceitful exclusive provision for MPP's hadn't been

born in Bill 27, we would now be debating the merits of unlocking and

not the injustice of a misapplication of democracy, which would

probably lead us into other areas of discussing the pros and cons of

the unlocking issue.

But the reality is that "democracy" or lack thereof in this case, has

been broken and you, as party leader, and your members have inherited

this injustice.

It's now up to you to lead by example and show true leadership and

honour toward the people that you govern and re-apply that basic

principle of "EQUALITY' in our democratic society for which Ontario,

and Canada for that matter, were founded upon!

The 25% unlock amount, recently introduced, should be and could easily

be 100%. You and your party must come to terms with the simple and

missing notion of equality for all in a basic democracy where

discrimination amongst a people is totally unacceptable in every aspect

of it's application.

Condoning and upholding a paternalistic and arrogant attitude, with the

unwarranted belief that only 61 MPP's are capable of making sound

financial decisions and being the only ones to have that unique right

to manage their finances as they see fit, is an extremely disrespectful

position for you to assume to defend if you choose that route.

We, as parents and role models, are trying to teach our children about

equality and model that behaviour in our own daily lives within our

family unit. Previous generations, who worked much harder physically

with their hands, than we do today, had a much simpler way of life than

those of us experience today. I can't pick up a paper today without

finding some form of corruptive behaviour or deceit within one or more

levels of the people who govern us. Bill 27 was another stellar example

which was done purposely with intent to exclude and favour a select

few.

Seniors and retirees are astonished and outraged as they learn of this

deceitful act by the former PC party. Our forefathers escaped such

types corruption and severe arrogant control in their homeland to come

to Canada to start over with a clean slate and founded a great nation

based on the simple fundamentals of fairness and equality for all

citizens, regardless of origin.

Mr. Tory, you, being in and around my generation, no doubt were raised

with similar values as those used to create this great province and

nation.

You must do the right thing and make Ontario equal again.

I am fairly certain that you would never allow yourself to run your own

family in an undemocratic style where some would be privileged 0%, some

25% and some 100%. The honour and principles displayed in a family

should be the same type of honour and principles applied by governments

toward all it's constituents.

Bill 27 is a disgraceful slap in the face and an affront to basic

democracy in any society. You know it and so do I, along with every

Ontarian that has learned about this grave injustice created by the

previous Conservative government. The Liberal party with it's recent

budget announcement is continuing, albeit now at 75%, to insult and

disrespect the public by maintaining a paternalistic control of Ontario

retirees personal pension money.

Don't take my word for it, be honest and truthful and ask those around

you that know of Bill 27, what they think of this inequality and

injustice where two sets of rules govern certain individuals in our

province in extremely different ways regarding their same or similarly

commuted pensions.

You cannot, nor should not, ignore this inequity that was created by

your predecessors.

There cannot be any such thing as 25% or 50% or 75% more equal. Equal

is exactly what it means - 100% the same for everyone regardless of who

you are or your chosen vocation.

The former ruling Conservative party recognized the restrictive and

unrealistic paternalism of the PBA in 1999 and rightly so! As amazing

as this may sound, they in fact did the right thing to get as far away

from those regulations as they could as they all realized how

restrictive, insulting, and demeaning they were. The only HUGE mistake

they made was that they should have amended the act to include ALL

Ontarians thus upholding the basic principal of equality in our

province.

Mr. Runciman was more than well justified and showed true democratic

representation by standing up in support of Ms. Horwath's Bill 175 to

fully unlock locked-in pensions allowing all Ontarians the same 100%

unlock privilege that was afforded him and the other 60 members of the

legislature in 1999! This man truly realized the error of his previous

government and had the courage to come forward and admit a mistake.

This is an unbelievable accomplishment in light of the endless "blame

the other party" that more often than not pervades the legislature

during question period.

You sir have the unprecedented opportunity to correct the former

Conservative mistake and proudly own that accomplishment for yourself!

You will have the support of every locked-in pension holder in Ontario

at the upcoming election if you announce your guaranteed intention to

fully unlock and transfer locked-in pensions to an RRSP format at age

55 or the normal retirement date.

I assure you, as I continue my campaign to inform Ontarians of the

deceit and inequity of Bill 27 and the unrealistic and archaic

restrictions of the current rules and regulations of the PBA, there

will be hundreds of thousands of voters anxiously awaiting your

intentions regarding the locked-in issue by the time the election takes

place. The quality of retirement, and for those already living on the

edge, in their remaining years, are largely in your hands.

You and your Conservative party must now, in true and honourable

democratic fashion, insist on extending the privilege of those that

have benefited from the previous Conservative party's Bill 27 to

include the rest of all Ontarians in the application of that same 100%

unlock privilege that was afforded to those 61 MPP's of all

affiliations in 1999.

For our youth and children's sake, show them by example, how a true,

fair and equally applied democracy works.

Seniors and Retirees of Ontario, who were the builders of this great

province deserve the respect they've earned from this current

generation and all others to follow.

They deserve to live out the remaining years of their lives in a

dignified manner with the fruits of their labours in a manner of their

choosing and not that of a faceless beurarcracy.

They are watching and they are listening.

Mr. Tory, you have an enormous opportunity to show the people in

Ontario the true power of democracy by correcting a horrible selfish

act made by the former Conservative government by issuing a simple

unequivocal statement of full support. All without costing the taxpayer

a single dime!

Now that's a powerful gift sitting in the palm of your hand.

People Inform People

Time Tells All

Knowledge is Power

Sincerely,

Grant Fleury [email protected]

Sudbury

[August1991]

If you want to unlock your pension, you should lose all tax benefits you've received through the entire process, all withheld upon the withdrawl. Could be 50% of your pension in some cases. Who knows.

No one has the reason to spend 100% of their pension plan tomorrow. They should budget ahead and not have these problems. I can see maybe 5%. Past that, too bad. Should have planned better.

Geoffrey, I think these people are willing to pay income taxes on any funds they take out of their RRSP or retirement savings. Their argument is that they can't take the money out at all. It's locked in.

In a sense, the government is forcing them to save their money for the future. Since many will die before they ever have access to the money, the government is in effect forcing them to leave an inheritance to their children or estate.

I'm intrigued that this controversy concerns provincial governments. What is the federal government's policy?

[geoffrey]

Geoffrey, I think these people are willing to pay income taxes on any funds they take out of their RRSP or retirement savings. Their argument is that they can't take the money out at all. It's locked in.

In a sense, the government is forcing them to save their money for the future. Since many will die before they ever have access to the money, the government is in effect forcing them to leave an inheritance to their children or estate.

Nonsense, the value of the tax revenue over time as the fund grew is enourmous, they make a massive savings by having grow it in a locked in fund. If everyone could easily defer earning until other years, enjoying no tax on any of the grow on that deferral in between, then sure.

If they want the money out, they should pay the entire time value of the taxation from day 1 on.

The real reasoning behind this is that the government gives people the benefit of not paying tax on capital growth in high income years in exchange for the promise that people don't squander those benefits too quickly and then require government aid later.

Opening up these locked in funds concerns me in two ways. The first being quite simply that more seniors are going to run their retirement down to nothing and live in poverty, and the second is that I bet door to door timeshare salesmen will make a killing.

If the option was take out your money, and if you run out, live on the streets until your death without social assistance of any type, then sure.

But somehow I don't think the voting public would be in favour of my proposal?

There is nothing that a skilled financial planner couldn't do to get them their needed cash without needed a massive withdrawl from a locked in fund.

[August1991]

Nonsense, the value of the tax revenue over time as the fund grew is enourmous, they make a massive savings by having grow it in a locked in fund. If everyone could easily defer earning until other years, enjoying no tax on any of the grow on that deferral in between, then sure.

Everyone can do that. It's called an RRSP.

The government should tax when people spend, not when people save. An RRSP in effect turns an income tax into a consumption tax. (Just to be clear here, I'm referring to a RRSPs in general. Bill C is referring to a locked RRSP.)

An income tax distorts the decision of whether to consume now or consume in the future.

Here, I'll defer to Andrew Coyne with a long-winded example:

In fact, the whole concept of taxing income is a distortion, since it is not really income you are taxing, but consumption. Income is self-evidently the sum of everything you consume plus whatever is left over, or consumption plus savings; and savings simply represents future consumption, whether by you or your heirs. In this sense, whether to tax income or consumption is something of a red herring: in the end, all taxes are on consumption. Taxing income, therefore, simply means that future consumption is taxed twice: in the first instance, as savings, and in the second, as the return on those savings.

Why is this a distortion? Suppose I make $100. Ordinarily, I'd prefer to spend it there and then: the urge to immediate gratification is strong. But if someone were to promise me, say, $110 tomorrow if I would just put off consumption until then, I might consider it. That is, at a 10% rate of return, I would be indifferent between spending it today or tomorrow: that is, between consumption and savings. Under a neutral tax system, that 10% margin would remain unaffected. Now suppose we introduce a 20% income tax. That leaves me with $80. I can spend that $80 today, or I can save and invest it. The trouble is, the 10% return that might have persuaded me to defer consumption is itself taxed, giving me just $6.40 in extra consumption tomorrow for my self-denial. The 10% return before tax is now an 8% return after tax. Effectively, the $110 in future consumption I had pre-tax is taxed, not at 20%, but at 21.5%.

But if we tax consumption instead, then present and future consumption are taxed at the same rate. If I spend today, I can buy $80 worth of goods. But if I save my money, then the whole $100, plus the 10% return, is carried forward into next year. If I spend it then, I get $88 worth of consumption, which is 10% more than I could get if I spent it now. The pre-tax relationships are preserved. This doesn't add any special incentive to save; it simply removes the disincentive to save inherent in the income tax.

A consumption tax doesn't have to be collected at the point of sale, like a sales tax, or be passed along each stage of the value-added process, like a VAT or GST. It can be collected just like an income tax, with an annual filing. Start will all income from whatever source, exempt all savings in whatever form, and you're left with consumption. In other words, you can either explicitly tax consumption, and implicitly shelter savings; or you can explicity shelter savings, and implicitly tax consumption. In practice, you probably want a mixture of the two, so that each catches what the other one misses. The GST achieves the first; a less restrictive version of the Registered Retirement Savings Plan the second.

Opening up these locked in funds concerns me in two ways. The first being quite simply that more seniors are going to run their retirement down to nothing and live in poverty, and the second is that I bet door to door timeshare salesmen will make a killing.

I don't know if I agree with your argument but the practical effect of this policy is that seniors save more than they otherwise would and they will have more when they die. The government is forcing seniors to leave more to their children or estate.

[Bill C]

Hello All;

I just received this letter from Greg Sorbara in snail mail concerning the insulting 25% unlock.

Ministry of Finance Office of the Minister

April 27, 2007

Dear Mr. Costello:

Thank you for your correspondence forwarded by Premier Dalton McGuinty, regarding Ontario locked-in accounts.

In response to concerns and suggestions received from Ontarians regarding locked-in accounts, the government has committed in its 2007 Ontario Budget to introduce changes to the rules governing locked-in accounts, including the introduction of a new life income fund (LIF) that permits 25 per cent unlocking. The new, more flexible, LIF and other modifications to the rules for locked-in accounts would provide Ontario seniors enhanced access to their locked-in funds.

The new LIF would replace existing LIFs and locked-in retirement income funds (LRIFS) and introduce the right for LIF account holders to withdraw or transfer to a non-locked-in account up to 25 per cent of their locked-in funds. The new LIF would also eliminate existing mandatory annuity purchase requirements, permit withdrawal of the entire remaining account balance by age 90 and allow account holders to make LRIF-type withdrawals based on the investment earnings in the previous year where this amount exceeds the maximum income under the LIF schedule.

Additional changes to the rules governing locked-in accounts would permit unlocking for account holders who are non-residents of Canada for at least two years and direct transfers to non-locked-in accounts of small amounts unlocked in accordance with the existing provisions of the Pension Benefits Act.

In addition, consistent rules for the waiver of spousal entitlements to locked-in funds upon the death of the account holder would also be introduced.

Consultations with financial institutions and other key stakeholders on the 2007 Budget 1 proposals have been initiated to ensure that the introduction of new LIF and other changes to the rules for locked-in accounts may proceed smoothly.

Implantation of the 2007 Budget proposals is expected to begin in January of 2008

Thank you again for writing Yours sincerely Greg Sorbara Minister

c: The Honourable Dalton McGuinty

[Higgly]

The locking provision is moronic. A lot of people had no choice. If they wanted to manage their own pension money - for example, that which might have been withdrawn from federal or provincial pensions - they had no option but to withdraw it into locked in RRSPs. So you get your money into a locked in RRSP and then you are free to take a flyer on some dumb-ass mining or high-tech stock and gamble it all away. Not only that but you have to deal with having several RRSP accounts because you cannot merge them.

Locked in RRSPs were probably dreamed up by the same jackass who invented the Canada Pension Ponzi scheme. Total unlocking makes sense. Locking in these funds is stupid. We don't need government that treats us like children.

[Bill C]

Higgly; You are absolutely correct.

Hi this is a reply I sent to Greg Sorbara's letter.

The Hon Greg Sorbara

Dear Sir:

I just received your letter in the mail concerning locked in pensions. There are a couple of items that really disturb me.

Quote "permit withdrawal of the entire remaining account balance by age 90 "

Sir : if you think that this is going to help bring Senior voters to vote for your party . I think you are sadly mistaken.

If only the average person would live to 90 years of age and be able to enjoy them selves after that.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

The second item is.

Quote "In addition, consistent rules for the waiver of spousal entitlements to locked-in funds upon the death of the account holder would also be introduced. "

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. I hope you are not suggesting that locked in pension funds be kept locked in for the spouse after the fund holder passes away.

Currently in Ontario the funds are unlocked 100% for the spouse when the fund holder passes away and also the funds are unlocked 100% if a doctor writes a letter that states that the fund holder will be dead within two years,

I would hope that you are not planing to change these provisions.

I would like to be advised on what you mean with the above quote.

If you are planning to do away with these provisions Sir. You and Your party will be committing political suicide as myself and a few hundred thousand people in Ontario will be lobbying continually against the Liberal party .

The better result for your party would be to unlock these funds 100% for the people in Ontario at 55 years of age. You may then have a few hundred thousand people on your side

25 % will not get the vote of the majority of locked-in fund holders

Bill Costello

[geoffrey]

Locked in RRSPs were probably dreamed up by the same jackass who invented the Canada Pension Ponzi scheme. Total unlocking makes sense. Locking in these funds is stupid. We don't need government that treats us like children.

Then give up all the tax breaks that come with, and remove all social assistance for seniors.

Then I agree with removing the provisions. I only dislike the locked in provision if it's in an environment where I don't have to see or deal with the consequences of old people that outlive their savings.

In the reality of today, it's needed to protect me from seniors that squander and then come begging for more.

[Higgly]

Then give up all the tax breaks that come with, and remove all social assistance for seniors.

Then I agree with removing the provisions. I only dislike the locked in provision if it's in an environment where I don't have to see or deal with the consequences of old people that outlive their savings.

In the reality of today, it's needed to protect me from seniors that squander and then come begging for more.

Like I said, and you probably didn't read or understand, people who have their money in locked in RRSPs can gamble them all away in the stock market. The 90 year old lock in provision assumes a lifespan greater than the actuarial tables allow for. The locking in provisions are a leaky boat and the only way to patch the boat is to restrict the kind of investments allowed in locked in RRSPs, which is administratively impossible. None of this has anything to do with the tax breaks given to seniors. Those are available to all - even those with no RRSP. Would be a pretty hard sell on a general population basis, I imagine.

[Bill C]

Hi;

I have been reading my online petition as I do every few days. Just to remind me why we need these funds unlocked.

NOBODY should have to go through this.

This is a article in my petition that helps me keep going after government to change this unjust legislation.

" Why is this government so cruel. They act like dictators. My mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer 5 years ago. My father and my mother wanted to go and travel as long as they could together and my father had a sizeable amount of money in a locked in pension and was already 68 years old The government would not allow him to take the money out . My mother then passed away two years later and had not been able to enjoy some of the things that they had saved the money for because of a unfeeling government. Now my father has passed away in the past year He also had no enjoyment from their savings . We his children did not want their money . We wanted them to be able to enjoy themselves. I am sure that thought never entered the governments mind . They would gladely take any money from my parents when they passed on. PlEASE people get rid of this uncaring government that is in power. The ones that have just unlocked the pensions a measly 23\% instead of letting the seniors have their money so they can live their retirement in the fashion they want Please vote for whichever government will unlock these pensions for your mother and fathers."

[August1991]

Bill C,

You are a subspecies of troll. You post comments only on a specific issue and yet even on this issue, you don't engage serious debate at all. Have you read posts above in this thread?

If you genuinely cared about this issue and wanted to change things, you should at least as a first step understand why there is opposition to change.

[Bill C]

Bill C,

You are a subspecies of troll. You post comments only on a specific issue and yet even on this issue, you don't engage serious debate at all. Have you read posts above in this thread?

If you genuinely cared about this issue and wanted to change things, you should at least as a first step understand why there is opposition to change.

Hi Augest1991;

I gather You havent read the comments from start to finish. I have responded to comments from other people and have also said that people have a right to their own opinions.

Yes I post comments on this issue because I believe we need Change.

I also understand that people have opposition to change .

They have every right to express their fears and post them if they wish.

If you would like to state why you dont want change I would be happy to debate with you.

Bill Costello

[Bill C]

Here is another reason for locked-in pensions to be unlocked. It was taken from my online petition.

I returned to work at age 40 after raising our family in the hopes of having a pension fund available. Now at 67 we are struggling to hang on to our home. It is very frustrating to know that you have funds that you can not access, but I guess the government thinks that we are not capable of handling our own money.

I am still looking for more signatures at

http://www.petitiononline.com/WRC101/petition.html

I will be sending it in again.

If you have a story to tell how the locking of these pensions affected you or you just want to send a message that you want these pensions unlocked.

You can put it in the online petition and I will make sure that every MPP & news paper Editor in Ontario See's it or You can mail it personally to the following people.

Ontario Liberals said it will unlock 25% in 2008 if they are still here.

We say that is not enough.

The latest word I have heard is that they wont go any further.

We have to tell them and the other party's that there is a need to go further. This is not their money or government money it is OUR MONEY

When a person considers that Saskatchewan unlocked 100% for their people.

Also in 1999 61 MPP,S also had all of their funds unlocked with a MAJORITY VOTE in Parliament.

We need to let all party's know that we all want 100%. Nothing less.

This is all our own money . Not government money to keep themselves in perks.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty

[email protected]

Hon. Greg Sorbara

[email protected]

Howard Hampton

[email protected]

John Tory

[email protected]

Robert W Runciman

[email protected]

Thank You Bill Costello

[August1991]

Hi Augest1991;

I gather You havent read the comments from start to finish. I have responded to comments from other people and have also said that people have a right to their own opinions.

...

If you would like to state why you dont want change I would be happy to debate with you.

There are several good posts above explaining why these funds should remain locked in and you haven't responded to these points.

[capricorn]

There is concern expressed here that some seniors could be thrown onto the welfare rolls if they squandered their pension investments if allowed free access to the money. How can we reconcile this with the fact that too many able-bodied Canadians are allowed to live all their lives sucking off taxpayers? Seniors who have worked all their lives would likely not be around for as long as these lifelong cheaters to sap the welfare system.

Consider also that some seniors have other income in addition to these locked-in pension funds. I am in this situation. I draw an annuity from a life income fund yet I also have another source of income. Why shouldn't I have access to the locked-in pension fund if I have other income that would continue to provide me a decent lifestyle?

I can understand the frustration of having to subsidize freeloaders through our taxes. I worked for 36 years so I too have paid through the nose to provide them the necessities of life. Yet, I don't want to penalize seniors because I am upset that nothing was done to decrease abuses of the welfare system.

[geoffrey]

There is concern expressed here that some seniors could be thrown onto the welfare rolls if they squandered their pension investments if allowed free access to the money. How can we reconcile this with the fact that too many able-bodied Canadians are allowed to live all their lives sucking off taxpayers? Seniors who have worked all their lives would likely not be around for as long as these lifelong cheaters to sap the welfare system.

Seniors are one of the biggest drains on the social saftey net in Canada, they are by no means self-sufficient. OAS for example is a monsterous government expenditure.

It's one of those emotional arguments to whine about how hard seniors worked their whole lives. Who cares. Why should I support someone just because they are over 65. That's rather arbitrary, no? Why didn't they save more of their earnings, ect. ect.. Bottom line, I shouldn't be funding other people's retirements while trying to put myself through school and get established. I certainly don't expect others to do the same for me when I retire.

Consider also that some seniors have other income in addition to these locked-in pension funds. I am in this situation. I draw an annuity from a life income fund yet I also have another source of income. Why shouldn't I have access to the locked-in pension fund if I have other income that would continue to provide me a decent lifestyle?

Because the locked-in provision pays for it's tax status. What else is there to understand. You agreed to have it locked in when you signed up, you've enjoyed the benefits, and now you want to change the game.

No. That's ridiculous.

I can understand the frustration of having to subsidize freeloaders through our taxes. I worked for 36 years so I too have paid through the nose to provide them the necessities of life. Yet, I don't want to penalize seniors because I am upset that nothing was done to decrease abuses of the welfare system.

Great, we'll agree. This may come as a suprise to you, but all the freeloaders don't die the minute they turn 65.

[capricorn]

geoffrey,

I agree the OAS expenditure is way too high and a mechanism is needed to reduce it. In 2006, $28B was spent on Old Age Security (includes the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS). Presently, seniors earning over $60K per annum are subject to a clawback of a portion of that payment. As a first step, I would like the income threshold subject to clawback reduced to around $45K. Young or old, anyone who cannot live on an income of $45K needs a lesson in budgeting. People need to adjust their lifestyle to their income. I say you can’t eat steak on hamburger wages, so adjust your food budget accordingly.

Seniors are increasing in numbers making this demographic group increasingly attractive to politicians for their vote potential. For this reason, I don’t think you and I will get our wish for a substantial decrease of this government expenditure anytime soon.

In terms of the tax incentive of pension funds, I would not object to paying income tax as is presently imposed on other RRSPs cash withdrawals. No one should expect a pass on this income tax.

Not all pension investments are voluntarily locked in. In my case, my pension contributions were made to an employer’s private pension plan and not through RRSP contributions. In accordance with existing pension legislation, these funds are automatically locked in. No choice is given to the contributor.

I do not agree with your blanket statement that seniors are not self-sufficient. It is simplistic to place the entire group into this category. Looking at national poverty statistics, the rate of poor seniors is not that far off from the rate of poverty found throughout the general population.

[Higgly]

I have a locked in RRSP. It is currently deposited with a discount broker. I could invest the whole thing in a stupid investment and lose it all in a week. Anybody who thinks locked in plans will save the government from heavy welfare payouts is missing this huge leak in the system. If I didn't have this dumb-ass locked in plan like an albatross around my neck, I would be able to merge all of my RRSP accounts and invest more efficiently. Enough said.

Can those who support this dumb-ass plan please tell us all whether or not they actually have money in a dumb-ass locked in RRSP? Let's start with you August, since you seem to know the least about it.

[geoffrey]

I do, my work pension is locked in until my retirement (and then it gets converted to some kind of fund... I haven't paid attention because I'm a few decades from retirement).

All my additional investments over what the company pays in my locked in fund are actually in non-registered savings. There is little tax advantage in the long run to RRSP's for me, right now anyways.