In the wake of U.S. President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate performance two weeks ago, the question arises about whether compulsory age limits should be set for politicians.
Admittedly, Biden’s troubles stem from more than his age — he’s 81. For much of the debate he stood mouth agape, eyes staring blindly ahead, the very picture of confusion.
These are among the symptoms of various neurological disorders, and while the president’s doctors deny it, he does appear to suffer some form of cognitive disorder.
Yet extreme old age is very nearly a fixture among American politicians. Between the Senate and House of Representatives, 19 of the members are 80 years of age or older.
At 90, Charles Grassley is the oldest, but he is followed closely by five others aged 85 or older, and many of these relics are running for re-election.
While Canadian politicians less frequently reach such advanced ages, it’s not at all unheard of.
Currently the oldest member of Parliament, Vancouver’s Hedy Fry, is 83. And in 2017 voters in West Vancouver-Capilano elected Ralph Sultan to the provincial legislature, where he served until the ripe old age of 86.
These are, admittedly, exceptions. Nevertheless, members of the Canadian Senate must retire at 75.
It would seem reasonable then to set a similar limit for MPs and MLAs whose responsibilities, especially in remote ridings, are far more physically demanding.
What about some other professions? Judges, like senators, face a compulsory age limit of 75.
And while generally speaking there is no upper limit for nurses or physicians, health authorities may set a limit for surgeons.
The issue is made more complicated by the evident fact that people age differently.
The sa国际传媒 government recognized this fact in 2008, amending the Human Rights Code to allow people to work beyond what had been the mandatory retirement age of 65.
As a result, employers who wish to impose such a limit must now show that there are legitimate work-related purposes for the policy.
However, if mandatory age limits sometimes make sense, there is one situation where they decidedly do not.
People who’ve been able to save for retirement frequently hold Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs). These were introduced by the federal government to help working folks put money aside for old age.
Funds placed in these plans are exempt from income tax, but with an important limitation.
When account holders reach 71, they are forced by law to convert their RRSPs into a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF), and with this comes a foolishly punitive scheme.
Specifically, each year RRIF holders are forced to withdraw set amounts from their fund, whether they want to or not.
At 71, the compulsory withdrawal is set at 5.28 per cent, rising annually to 6.82 per cent by the age of 80, and ultimately topping out at 20 per cent at age 95 and beyond.
Moreover these withdrawals are compelled, regardless of the owner’s need, and regardless of the plan’s performance in a given year.
In five of the past 20 years the Toronto Stock Exchange had negative returns, including a loss of 11.6 per cent in 2018 and a shocking 35 per cent in 2008.
Forcing RRIF holders to withdraw funds in any of those years cut deeply into their savings.
So why the compulsory withdrawal policy? Because Ottawa wants to bolster its revenues, and RRIF withdrawals are taxable.
Also, perhaps, because forced withdrawals will deny some pensioners Old Age Security payments by lifting their income above the OAS limit. That too saves Ottawa money.
As our population ages, the time has come to reconsider forced withdrawals.
Giving seniors help in managing their nest eggs sounds like a timely commitment to make.
>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
