theglobeandmail.com
Insured Annuities: Boosting Retirement Income While Addressing Estate Planning
A 70-year-old with $250,000 in GICs earning 3.5% annually can increase after-tax income from $5,688 to $16,335 by using an insured annuity; however, this depletes capital at death, which can be offset by purchasing life insurance.
- What are the trade-offs between the increased after-tax income provided by an insured annuity and its impact on estate planning?
- By shifting from GICs to an insured annuity, individuals can increase their retirement income. This strategy involves converting low-yield investments into an annuity that provides a higher stream of regular payments. To mitigate the loss of capital for heirs, a portion of the increased income can be used to purchase a life insurance policy.
- How significantly does an insured annuity increase after-tax retirement income compared to traditional low-yield investments such as GICs?
- For a 70-year-old with $250,000 in GICs earning 3.5% annually, an insured annuity offers significantly higher after-tax income compared to GICs alone. The annuity provides $16,335 annually after tax, while GICs yield only $5,688, a difference of $10,647. This strategy, however, depletes capital upon death.
- How does the tax efficiency of using non-registered funds to purchase an insured annuity affect the overall return and inheritance for heirs?
- While offering substantially higher after-tax income, insured annuities present a trade-off: reduced inheritance for heirs. The example highlights the need to weigh increased current income against the potential impact on estate planning. Using non-registered funds maximizes tax benefits.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article uses framing to heavily favor insured annuities. The headline (not provided, but implied by the text) likely emphasizes the increased income potential, while downplaying or omitting the risks and limitations. The use of Greg's example, showing significant income improvement, reinforces this positive bias. The focus on after-tax cash flow is strategically chosen to appeal to the target audience's concerns without providing a balanced comparison of other strategies.
Language Bias
The article uses positively charged language to describe insured annuities ("increase the cash in your pocket," "higher stream of income," etc.). Conversely, GICs are described with negative terms ("not very high," "further interest-rate cuts"). Neutral alternatives could include "increased income potential" instead of "increase the cash in your pocket" and "stable income" instead of "low yield".
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the benefits of insured annuities without adequately addressing potential drawbacks, such as the lack of capital for heirs and the complexities of annuity contracts. It omits discussion of alternative investment strategies that might offer similar or better returns with less risk or capital loss. There is no mention of the potential for inflation to erode the value of annuity payments over time.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the choice as solely between low-yield GICs and insured annuities. It neglects other investment options that could provide higher returns and potentially greater flexibility. The article implies that the only way to increase after-tax cash flow is through an annuity.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses strategies for increasing retirement income, particularly for seniors. By suggesting insured annuities as a way to boost after-tax income, it addresses economic inequalities among retirees. Higher retirement income can improve financial stability and reduce the economic disparities between different segments of the senior population. The example of Greg shows a substantial increase in post-tax income using an annuity compared to GICs, directly contributing to improved financial security in retirement.