Letters and Tweets — January/February 2016

CPA Magazine readers respond to the November 2015 issue via mail and Twitter.


The cover of the November CPA Magazine (“The Retirement Boom”) captures readers’ attention as does your editorial note, which is quite clear. This leads to anticipation that within the issue there would be a few meaningful articles on the subject. Unfortunately this is not the case.

It is a very sad commentary of your view of the “professional” readers if you think that any of the articles enhance their knowledge of the extremely important subject. All the articles have in some form appeared in newspapers over the last few years — all essentially rehashing the same obvious issues.

Perhaps, due to the larger base of readers, you have no option but to dumb down the articles. If your readers, the ones who provide services to the public, have only marginal appreciation of the issues, then what does this say about CPAs?

Perhaps you need to first decide on appropriate content and then create the cover and your editor’s note. I do commend you on the idea and effort, but this issue is a fancy version of the Toronto Sun mag.

Jack Grover, North York, Ont.


I very much enjoy CPA Magazine. Having just read “The Retirement Boom” and, being a 1947-born boomer, I am happy to see the advice we share with our compatriots. If “a shoemaker’s son should not go barefoot,” then a “CPA should not struggle financing retirement” — it would be an embarrassment to our skills and professionalism.

One aid that I would like to see is a connection to a credible, Canadian actuarial table. Absent any more pointed information, I have used an estimate of my average actuarial age at death for my financial planning for about 40 years. I simply extrapolate from general numbers I see in articles.

However, as I close in on that age, I find myself trying to improve the efficiency of my plan. Do you know of a site? If so, maybe you could refer to it in future retirement planning articles.

By the way, one of the “irritants” for those of us who maintained the discipline of long-term savings for retirement is well illustrated on page 46. We saved in an RRSP when earnings were lower (20.05% tax refund in the article) and will bring in our “top-up” at a much higher rate — maybe not 43.41% — and then the extra 15% clawback when we just cross over the OAS line.

Doug Hartt, Cape Breton, NS