aughhhhh

Without exception all 'experts' in the finance industry (including the Ontario Securities Council's website "Getting Smarter About Money") teach false claims about the RRSP's benefits/costs. E.g.

• Contribute 'to get the contribution's tax refund/reduction' ... false.
• Double your benefits by using the RRSP's refund to fund a TFSA ... false.
• The larger account created by the contribution's tax reduction creates larger $profits that you keep ... false.
• RRSP profits are only 'tax deferred', and taxed on withdrawal ... false.
• RRSP capital gains and Cdn dividends are taxed at full rates (on withdrawal) and lose their preferential tax treatment.
• Tax rates

A lot of readers/posters here probably know the received wisdom's conclusion on that score. But maybe you never knew the detailed arguments. Nor read the other side's detailed opinion. It is disputed again, and countered again.

See summary of both sides of dispute at :
https://www.kitces.com/blog/weekend-reading-for-financial-planners-month-february-24-25-2024/#why-not-100-equities

Original SSRN paper at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4590406

Defence of received wisdom by Cliff Asness (who is a big shot in the industry) at https://www.aqr.com/Insights/Perspectives/Why-Not-100-Equities

Is there any reason to prefer to fund an RRSP over a FHSA now? Ignore the company plans that require it, and the pension closure that require the LockeIn type. I cannot think of any situation, because its benefits are just soo much higher.

The timeanddate website I use for weather forecasting is predicting MINUS 21 and 22% overnight for next Fri/Sat 12th/13th. !!!!!

There have recently been a number of posts with people believing the two metrics (CR and DL) are the same. I did a quick websearch and found that claim repeated on the web. But it is wrong. I looked back at few of my Notice of Assessment and found different formats. One showed BOTH the DL and the CR. Another just the DL. So I don't know exactly what people are looking at.

But the DL has a set calculation that shows why it cannot be assumed = CR. Its second line is "Allowable RRSP contributions deducted in that prior year".

(a) Notice that this second line is NOT subtracting the year's CONTRIBUTIONS. It is subtracting the DEDUCTIONS claimed on this tax return. So when contribu

Want to impress your co-workers at the water cooler with your financial acumen? I've been noticing in the media the latest 'cool' word.

"Print" ... meaning the release of some statistic. As in 'It’s not hard to imagine a couple of unexpected inflation or jobs prints over the coming months ...'.

You have probably read references to this 15 min video from the Conservative's Pierre Poilievre. You all should watch it. https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1730987690818977887
I am no fan of the guy but I could not identify any 'slant', much less 'error'.

My only diss would be that his solutions don't go far enough to solve the problem. It will only be solved when some people are made to 'hurt' and lose money. But since both parties are now 'populists' that choose their policies according to what will be loved by voters (instead of what the country needs), I don't see any party solving this problem.