If I Was 70 With $920,000, This Would Be My Retirement Plan

Summary

The video models a Canadian single retiree, Rachel, age 70, to illustrate how retirement withdrawals can affect taxes and inheritance. The main point is that taking only the minimum from an RRIF may leave a large taxable balance late in life or at death. In the modeled case, increasing withdrawals and using some proceeds to replenish the TFSA improves the projected after-tax estate while keeping planned spending unchanged.

Case assumptions and assets

• Assets: $800,000 in an RRSP and $120,000 in a TFSA, for $920,000 total; no unregistered assets.
• Government benefits: The scenario has Rachel starting CPP and OAS at age 70. The presenter also notes that delaying benefits can be part of retirement planning.
• Spending: $72,000 per year through age 75, then $60,000, followed by $50,000 in later retirement.
• Projection: Through age 95, despite an assumed average life expectancy of 87.
• Model assumptions: 2.5% inflation and a 5% rate of return.
• Tax rates in the baseline scenario: About 15% average and 28% marginal.

Withdrawal comparison

Baseline: Withdraw the RRIF minimum and use the TFSA to supplement spending. The video cites a minimum withdrawal of $38,095 at age 70 and says the next year’s minimum would be at least $40,000. At age 95, the projection leaves about $272,000 in the RRSP/RRIF and $311,000 in the TFSA. At age 87, about $572,000 remains in the RRSP/RRIF, potentially creating a substantial taxable balance at death.

Alternative: Increase the RRIF withdrawal to $60,000 rather than taking only the minimum, with some excess funds used to replenish the TFSA. The presenter says the RRIF would be depleted around age 89–90, while the TFSA holds more of the remaining assets. At age 87, the projected RRIF balance is about $152,000.

The modeled spending and after-tax funds available for Rachel’s lifetime are described as the same under both approaches; the main difference is the after-tax inheritance. The video reports:

• At age 95, the inheritance difference is about $6,900.
• At age 90, the alternative produces about $72,000 more in the estate, despite the baseline’s higher gross inheritance; the baseline is said to have a $226,000 tax bill.
• At age 87, the difference is about $77,000.
• The presenter also cites gains of about $10,000 if death occurs at age 71–72 and about $25,000 at age 75.

The transcript also reports a comparison figure of $79,962 for spending or lifetime costs, saying it is the same across scenarios. The subtitles do not clearly explain what this metric represents.

Framework and cautions

• Model spending, benefits, taxes, investment returns, and longevity together rather than relying only on minimum RRIF withdrawals.
• Compare projected outcomes at multiple ages—not just age 95—including the assumed life expectancy and earlier-death scenarios.
• Consider drawing down taxable registered assets more deliberately and shifting surplus funds into a TFSA, where withdrawals are tax-free.
• If assets are not needed for spending, the presenter says a larger TFSA balance may provide more flexibility for lifetime gifts or charitable donations.
• Results depend on assumptions such as inflation, returns, and life expectancy. The presenter recommends reviewing the plan with a financial advisor. The figures are specific to this example, not universal outcomes.

Assets and instruments mentioned

RRSP, RRIF, TFSA, CPP, and OAS. No individual securities, ETFs, bonds, or commodities are discussed. One reference to “Social Security” appears in the subtitles, but the rest of the example is Canadian and focuses on CPP and OAS.

Presenter and source

Adam Bornn, speaking for Parallel Wealth.