Stop the CPP before it kills more Canadians

To retire — or not — is primarily a lifestyle choice, but one that also has implications for health.

This article, by Lawrence Solomon, first appeared in the National Post

The next president of the United States will either be age 69 (Hillary Clinton) or 70 (Donald Trump) upon assuming office next year and, if re-elected, either 77 or 78 upon leaving the presidency. Had Bernie Sanders not been shafted by the Democratic National Committee and had he gone on to win the presidency, he would have been 75 upon assuming office and ended his second term at 83.

The new hands-on CEO of Fox News is Rupert Murdoch, age 85, who replaces Roger Ailes, age 76, who resigned amid accusations of being inappropriately randy around female colleagues. Fox’s #1 star and money maker, Bill O’Reilly, age 66, in his spare time averages more than one New York Times bestseller a year and moonlights as executive producer on award-winning films for National Geographic and Fox.

Who needs to retire? Certainly not billionaires like Warren Buffett (85) and Carl Icahn (80), but neither do rapidly increasing numbers of the general public who now live fitter, longer and more productive lives and see no reason to be put out to pasture. In the early 1980s, a mere 10 per cent of the U.S. workforce over age 65 was working; today that number has doubled, to almost 20 per cent. Fewer than half who continue to work do so due to financial pressure; most continue at work out of choice, chiefly because they like their jobs or “want to stay involved.”

In the case of baby boomers, according to Gallup’s Employee Engagement studies, half plan to work past age 65; 10 per cent plan to never retire. Moreover, older boomers in the workforce tend to be more engaged in their work than younger workers. Far from resting on their laurels, says Gallup, people over 50 represent one of America’s fastest-growing groups of entrepreneurs, participants in what the U.S. Small Business Administration calls “encore” careers.

To retire — or not — is primarily a lifestyle choice, but one that also has implications for one’s health. Findings this week presented in Toronto by the Alzheimer’s Association indicate that jobs requiring mental engagement, particularly jobs such as teaching, social work, sales and law, that involve interacting with others, can dramatically lower the chance of acquiring Alzheimer’s or other forms of dementia. These results support those from France’s Bordeaux School of Public Health, which found that each additional year of work lowers the risk of dementia by 3.2 per cent. All told, according to Bordeaux’s director, “those who retired at 65 years old had a 14.6 per cent lower risk of getting dementia than those who retired at 60 years old.”

Numerous other studies indicate that work keeps us sound in body as well as in mind. A 2005 British Medical Journal analysis of Shell Oil employees found that 55-year-old retirees were 89 per cent likelier to die within 10 years of retirement than those who retired at 65. Early retirement especially harmed those below Shell’s managerial and professional rungs — skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled and clerical workers were 17 per cent likelier to die young.

Given the abundant evidence that work acts as a tonic, especially for those less affluent, why is the government so determined to consign people to the ranks of Canada Pension Plan retirees? Mandatory pension plans have never been well justified on economic grounds: This payroll tax sucks money away from young entrepreneurs who need investment capital and it raises labour costs for companies, slowing their growth and that of the overall economy. The chief justification for forced pensions is moral: the well-being of pensioners. But where’s the morality if pensions promote ill health? If the CPP is not only a job killer but an actual killer?

Rather than growing the CPP by requiring workers and employers to increase their contributions, the government should scrap the CPP through an orderly phase-out. Doing so would be healthy for the government’s coffers, too, through health-care savings and income taxes from all those non-retirees earning a paycheque. With that, the government could improve care for those who truly need it — those unfit to work, whether due to mental or physical disability, who are now poorly taken care of.

Work is empowering, needed by the poor at least as much as the rich to provide a sense of purpose and maintain their involvement in society. It took decades of lobbying before governments abolished mandatory retirement. May less lobbying be required for the abolition of its equally perverse corollary, mandatory retirement savings.

Lawrence Solomon is research director at Consumer Policy Institute. Email:


About Lawrence Solomon

Lawrence Solomon is one of Canada's leading environmentalists. His book, The Conserver Solution (Doubleday) popularized the Conserver Society concept in the late 1970s and became the manual for those interested in incorporating environmental factors into economic life. An advisor to President Jimmy Carter's Task Force on the Global Environment (the Global 2000 Report) in the late 1970's, he has since been at the forefront of movements to reform foreign aid, stop nuclear power expansion and adopt toll roads. Mr. Solomon is a founder and managing director of Energy Probe Research Foundation and the executive director of its Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute divisions. He has been a columnist for The Globe and Mail, a contributor to the Wall Street Journal, the editor and publisher of the award-winning The Next City magazine, and the author or co-author of seven books, most recently The Deniers, a #1 environmental best-seller in both Canada and the U.S. .

1 thought on “Stop the CPP before it kills more Canadians

  1. Lawrence,

    Much larger, better designed studies (129,000+ participants) which accounted for people retiring due to declining health have actually found the exact opposite. A German study (circa 2009) found that people who retire healthy at earlier ages live longer than those who retire healthy later in life. The study concluded that early retirement lowered mortality risks by 12% for men and by 23% for women.

    This study proves the opposite case then the one you are attempting to make and then sheds light on why the study that you are quoting will draw the wrong conclusion. Some early retirees are retiring early because they have poor health and low survival chances. Contrary to your conclusion, its not the retirement that is causing the early death but rather they are retiring knowing that they aren’t going to live to a ripe old age. When that cohort is factored out, based on number of days in the hospital 2 years prior to retirement, those that retire early live longer. (Source:

    The findings regarding dementia would seem logical. A skill is only as good as the practice it receives.

    In short, perhaps you should end your crusade of robbing people of a safety net in retirement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s