Talk:Registered retirement savings plan/Archives/2014

Back-up found to support the Nitty-Gritty claims

Paper published and available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1905721 by actuaries regarding the US system (which to most extents is the same as the Canadian). See pages 24 and 25 and compare to what existed before GroundZero's changes ...

RRSPs have five effects:

1. Taxes on earned (employment) income (to the extent contributed to the plan) are deferred until the eventual withdrawals from the plan. There is no benefit from the deferral because it is an accrued liability that grows at the same rate as the investments themselves. The tax deferred is commonly called the contribution tax credit.
2. Income earned inside the plan on the after-tax savings (excluding the contribution tax credit) is not taxed either while within the plan or on withdrawal.
3. One's marginal tax rate when withdrawing cash may be higher (or lower) than the rate at which one claimed the original contribution credit. This creates a penalty (or benefit) equal to (change in tax rate %) divided by (1 minus tax rate on contribution).
4. Canada has a variety of programs available to retired people whose benefits decrease as one's income increases. By deferring the income until retirement, the additional income created at that time may reduce those benefits.
5. Claiming the contribution tax credit may be deferred until a later year (when the expected marginal tax rate is higher), but there is a penalty for the delay.

For the first 23 pages this paper argue that the tax reduction on contribution is not a cost to the government (i.e. it is not a benefit to the saver). This directly contradicts the claim by the received wisdom in the finance world.

The paper says "There are two primary advantages of qualified retirement accounts over fully taxable savings. The first advantage is the tax-free rate of return earned on the account... Many people do not understand the fact that most retirement savings proposals provide a tax-free rate of return on amounts contributed. In the case of a Roth IRA (i.e. TFSA) this effect is fairly obvious... On the other hand, it is not intuitively obvious that the same result occurs with contributions to a deductible retirement savings arrangement (i.e. RRSP)." This validates Nitty-Gritty's point #2

The paper says "The second advantage is the deferral of income tax on contributions and earnings until withdrawal, at which time the taxpayer may face a lower income tax rate... Some taxpayers will face a higher rate of tax in retirement, some will face a lower rate, and some will face the same rate of tax. The second advantage, deferring the tax on contributions and earnings, occurs only if a taxpayer faces a lower tax rate in retirement." In other words ... the deferral is not a benefit. It is the change in tax rates that is the benefit. And the rate may be higher or lower. This validates Nitty-Gritty's points #1 and #3.

Point #4 I believe no one here disputes, although it is not listed by the government sites. Point #5 I believe is agreed to except regarding whether an opportunity cost or actual. So I restated without stipulating either.24.85.94.77 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well Hallelulia! Hope that is the end of this.207.102.255.247 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

207.102... spoke too soon. Now it is Owenx who is refusing to allow posts, even while refusing to comment here.24.85.94.77 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

24.85.94.77, I am running out of patience for your games. You removed the entire External references section of the article without providing a single valid reason for doing so. Do it again and you'd be blocked from editing this article like any other disruptive vandal. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

In fact the links still exist in the reference section where they were actively used in the article. (Except for one that is no longer published and needed the WayBackMachine - which had no info not currently available). If you wanted the links repeated a second time, you were free to add them. It would not have resulted in the deletion of all the rest of the constructive edits.24.85.94.77 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It was this threat by OwenX that lead to the creation of the Editing Blocked section below.24.85.94.77 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

---

I have found a second source to backup the NittyGritty list of benefits - dating from 1997 - from the US again. See https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=2051 . From page 6 ..."This (tax) treatment creates two potential tax benefits: (1) taxpayers effectively earns a tax-free rate of return on IRA investments and (2) the contributions may be taxed at a lower marginal tax rate than the taxpayer's marginal tax rate when the contributions were made" ...." From page 8 ..."Deductible IRAs (tax reduction on contribution) may provide a psychological incentive to save in the case of taxpayers who owe tax".24.85.94.77 (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've spent a little time looking at these claims you want to insert into this article. The problem I see is not that they're wrong per se (the math looks OK to me, though I would say some of their conclusions are wrong; there is a definite advantage to tax sheltering your income over 30+ years), but this contention that everyone else is wrong. I can find you any number of RRSP calculators online that will calculate and compare RRSP/TFSA/non-registered scenarios using the same assumptions as this person's spreadsheet. I can find you any number of personal finance websites that will explain exactly how an RRSP works. I don't dispute that there is a great deal of confusion amongst laypeople about how RRSPs work, but that doesn't mean the "received wisdom" (whatever that's meant to mean) is wrong; just that people aren't all that educated about the ins-and-outs. --142.242.18.254 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"there is a definite advantage to tax sheltering your income over 30+ years" - not if the tax liability accrues at the same rate as your investment, which is exactly the point you--and most sources--are missing. However, we're not here to discuss the veracity of such claims, but their verifiability against reliable sources. Owen× ☎ 22:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Even the spreadsheet that's supposed to "prove" this assertion shows there is a benefit to sheltering your income in an RRSP, compared to a taxable account. The benefit derives from the fact that your profits are allowed to compound over time without taxes biting away each year. What perhaps they're trying to say is there isn't a benefit over the TFSA model (after-tax money allowed to grow with no further tax liablity). --142.242.18.254 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@142.242.18.254 Are you sure you understand the argument Retail Investor is making? No one disputes that the RRSP has benefits - great benefits. The dispute is over 'what creates those benefit'. It is only when you correctly identify what creates the benefits that you can maximize them. The point of the spreadsheet is not to calculate the net $ benefit - it is to show its deconstruction into the true factors. 24.85.94.77 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

User 24 still seems to think that dragging up a couple of obscure references to American papers from some time ago can help convince Wikipedia to take a position on these issues that is contrary to the whole body of work supported by the Government of Canada, the accounting profession and the financial sector. This is not what Wikipedia is for.

While I'm here, does anybody know what organization or individuals publish retailinvestor.org/Nitty Gritty? Anyone? Ground Zero | t 16:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Put another way, why does the author of this blog hide him/herself behind the cloak of anonymity? What does he/she have to hide? And if he/she has to hide, why would this blog be considered a source for an encyclopedia article? Ground Zero | t 15:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing Blocked

I don't believe that threats are constructive.

On Dec 30, 2013 Owenx hit the 'undo' button twice in a row without giving any indication 'why'. He was undoing my re-instating the Re-write and changing the Benefits to Nitty Gritty's list because I had found a legitimate source validating those conclusion. It was only after I disclosed his actions here (above - half way down the BackUp Found section) that he responded saying ... I am running out of patience for your games... Do it again and you'd be blocked from editing this article like any other disruptive vandal. 24.85.94.77 (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I started a disputes resolution process at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Registered_Retirement_Savings_Plan_and_its_Talk_page I'm not exactly sure what happens next.24.85.94.77 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Update - I have quit the dispute resolution process after more than a week. The proposals were getting worse and worse, not better and better. To recap what was done the following numbered sections show the article's description of the essential tax structure :

1. At the start - "For the most part, contributions to RRSPs are deductible from taxable income, reducing income tax payable. Because Canada has a progressive tax system, taxes are reduced at the highest marginal rate. Increases in the value of the plan assets (whether capital gains, interest income or other) are not subject to income or other taxes in Canada while inside the accounts. Disbursements from an RRSP are taxable as income at the time of withdrawal."
2. The re-write that was 'undone' three times - "Contributions can be claimed as tax deductions, income earned in the accounts is not taxed, and withdrawals are fully taxed as income."
3. The result of the dispute resolution process - "Contributions to RRSPs are deductible from taxable income, reducing income tax payable for the year in which the contributions are claimed. Investment income (interest and dividends) and capital gains earned in the plans are exempt in the year they are earned. Withdrawals of built-up income and contributions are taxable as income when they are withdrawn. This is the same tax treatment provided to Registered Pension Plans established by employers"

24.85.94.77 (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

I have applied the changes that were discussed at the dispute resolution process, which is now closed.

I think there is still room for improvement.

User 24 identified that the lead paragraph(s) are too much about rules. I agree, and think that these sentences would be better incorporated into the Taxation section:

"It must comply with a variety of restrictions stipulated in the Canadian Income Tax Act.[2] Rules determine the maximum contributions, the timing of contributions, the assets allowed, and the eventual conversion to a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF) at age 71.[3] Approved assets include savings accounts, guaranteed investment certificates (GICs), bonds, mortgage loans, mutual funds, income trusts, corporate shares, foreign currency and labour-sponsored funds."

Any objections? Ground Zero | t 00:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Owen× ☎ 02:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add a section about the historical foreign content limit and its elimination. Do you wish to review a draft here, or should I just go ahead and edit the article? Owen× ☎ 13:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether User 24 is going to come back or not. I'm okay with you making changes directly. If there is anything contentious, we can always restore the previous version and deal with it on the talk page. Best regards, Ground Zero | t 15:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again

Once again we have an editor, User:24.85.94.77, trying to impose his/her unusual theories on this article. On the positive side, s/he is not trying to do so to the exclusion of the view embraced by the rest of the financial and governmental world. On the negative side, s/he is continuing to:

• make big edits unilaterally without discussing them on the talk page first despite the amount of grief this has caused in the past,
• add in lots of grammatical, punctuation, capitalization and formatting errors that crapify the article, and
• misrepresent what the articles s/he is quoting say.

While it should be the place of the person making the changes to explain and defend them here first, that doesn't seem likely to happen, so I will start he discussion. Here is why I reverted the edits:

1. "Others dispute that understanding." This is referenced with a link to "Golumbec, "Blinded By The Refund", 2011". To start with, User:24 misspells the article author's name.

In these two articles, Golombek is comparing (1) investing in an RRSP to investing in non-tax-sheltered investments (or borrowing to invest), and (2) investing in an RRSP to investing in an TFSA. This article is about RRSPs; it is not a comparison to other investments. Golombek does not consider the comparison between investing in an RRSP and spending the money, which is the decision that most people are making.

2. "They provide a model and the math proofs that the tax deduction on contribution is not a benefit, there is no benefit from tax deferrals and that profits are not taxed on withdrawal."

In fact, withdrawals of profits from RRSPs and RRIFs are taxed in the year they are withdrawn. The Income Tax Act is clear on this, Canada Revenue Agency will require it, and your financial institution will withhold tax from your withdrawals. To say otherwise is false and misleading.

3. "Instead they claim that the tax reduction on contribution is like a loan from the government."

"Like a loan". This is an analogy. It is not, in fact, an actual loan in law.

4. A reference is provided to retailinvestor.org "Nitty Gritty of RRSP", which is an anonymous blog that trades in hysteria and conspiracy theories. User:24 is unwilling to accept Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. I don't object to including Golombek's articles in the external links section. I wouldn't even object to a correctly written and formatted, neutral presentation of this as a comparison between TFSAs, unsheltered investments and RRSPs, but I won't accept User:24's attempt to present this as a dispute over how RRSPs actually work, and I won't accept her/him making contentious and sloppy edits without getting agreement on the talk page first. Ground Zero | t 01:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said, Ground Zero. I agree with most of your points. However, re: #1, it makes little sense to compare investing in RRSP to spending, even if that is the most common choice people make. If there's any point in analyzing such comparisons, it is between RRSP and non-registered investments, and between RRSP and other registered investments. Whether Golombek and User:24 do so correctly is a separate issue.

Re: #2, that is an oddly worded statement by User:24. I'd be happy to give him an opportunity to reword it--here, on the Talk page.

Re: #3, again, poor wording, but as you are well aware, when looking at a cashflow with upfront outlays and income at the tail end, TVM calculations often refer to such situations under the general title of "loan", even when legally the transaction isn't one. In our case, the government can indeed be seen as "lending" taxpayers money to invest in RRSP, with the amount to be paid back after the taxpayer turns 71, or when the funds are withdrawn from the plan. While not the legal definition, this is a useful model, and we should keep our mind open to such, if it helps illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of RRSP.

All in all, I am pleased to see User:24 seek more notable sources for his claims. Like you, I would like to see a far better job of (neutral!) copyediting from User:24, and a better collaboration with other editors. Some of the points s/he makes have a place in the article--if stated properly and supported by reliable sources. I think we're on the right track, but clearly have a long way to go yet. Owen× ☎ 13:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User.24 here:

1. I have corrected Golumbek's name. I don't know what GZ meant by "lots of grammatical, punctuation, capitalization and formatting errors that crapify the article." He is free to make corrections. That is never an excuse to reverse an edit of content.
2. Added fifth reference to support RI understanding.
3. Corrected the list of benefits claimed by the official sites and the account-providers to reflect EXACTLY what is on their site - from GZ's personal ideas.
4. All the objections above regarding the information on the Retail Investor's site has been answered. The rules perfectly allow for 'just one' person with another POV. The rules say that if a POV has merit it will likely be adopted by others. When 5 people argue the same thing, it has merit. To claim that still more reliable sources are needed is just stonewalling.
5. I won't argue 'what the author meant by ....' because Ground Zero is proud of NOT reading the references being discussed. IMO it is GZ who has mis-read Golombek's articles. The reader is free to read the references himself.
6. I won't argue 'which understanding is correct' because is irrelevant to the decision to include it in the article.
7. I gave a definition of how to measure 'net benefit' because GZ seems not clear on it.
8. No one is, or ever has been, disputing the RRSP mechanics which are written in law. The mechanics are covered in the Taxation section. It is the net benefits that are disputed, along with the 'model' that explains where they come from. It is perfectly valid to use analogies (like 'loan') to convey a conceptual model.
9. The taxation section was edited to remove the personal assumptions about 'the model that explains where the benefits come from'.
10. Calling a website an "anonymous blog that trades in hysteria and conspiracy theories"; talking about "imposing" ideas; complaining an edit is "big" when it addressed only one of the article's errors; claiming that MY edits fail to be 'neutral', when it is you two refusing to allow a contradicting POV into the body of the page; all show there will never be agreement. When consensus won't happen, don't wait for it.
11. If you 'don't understand' something in an edit, or think some wording 'odd', but don't say 'what' exactly, I cannot help you. Keep in mind your answer is probably spelled out in the reference linked.

24.85.94.77 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, User:24! I've been pushing to add the alternative view championed by retailinvestor.org to the article from day one. However, there are policies and standards governing Wikipedia, and you are going at it the wrong way. Instead of wasting your time on edit wars and dispute resolution tribunals, spend some time here on the Talk page discussing your proposed changes. GZ is a highly skilled and experienced editor. He could be your biggest ally if you just tried to collaborate with him rather than fight him. Owen× ☎ 16:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I will respond to a few points quickly.

1. "He is free to make corrections. That is never an excuse to reverse an edit of content." I reversed the content because you are edit warring. I am also pointing out that your editing is careless and riddled with erros. It is not up to other editors to clean up your mess. If you do not care enough about your edits to write them in a reasonably correct way, you can't expect other people to care enough to let them stay in the article.

5. "Ground Zero is proud of NOT reading the references being discussed." Let's be clear: I did not read the references beiung provided at a time when User:24 was was trying to push this alternative view as being the truth and the standard view as being wrong because of WP:FRINGE. I have read the Glombek articles and the Jack Mintz articles.

10. "Calling a website an "anonymous blog that trades in hysteria and conspiracy theories"; talking about "imposing" ideas". It is an anonymous blog. It does not indicate who has written it, and I have asked User:24 who is behind it, but s/he has provided no information. As far as it trading in hysteria and conspiracy theories, that is not "imposing a view", but rather an objective observation: "Even the largest banks' education sites are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.... Even the public accountants refuse to change their advice and continue the same old garbage.... Even the Consumer Affairs Department of the Government purposefully lie to you." Will anyone say that this is not hysterical and alleging conspiracies?

10. "it is you two refusing to allow a contradicting POV into the body of the page". Please re-read my comment in #4 above. I have always been willing to working towards compromise on the talk page or through dispute resolution. I wish that User:24 were also willing instead of resorting to edit warring. Ground Zero | t 18:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User:24 is continuing to edit war, restoring the reference to the anonymous blog, the punctuation and capitalization errors, the misspelling of Golombek's name, and the statement that "profits are not taxed on withdrawal", which they are. No further changes should be made to the article until they are resolved on the talk page. Where there are reliable sources to support a statement, there is no reason to cite a blog. Wanting to use Wikipedia to promote a blog is not a valid reason.

"No one is, or ever has been, disputing the RRSP mechanics which are written in law." I am glad that no-one disputes that the original contributions and profits are taxed on withdrawal. An encyclopedia article should therefore not say "profits are not taxed on withdrawal" as this will be confusing to many readers. Ground Zero | t 13:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is my proposal to incorporate the analogy advanced by Golombek and others, using Golombek's words instead of those of an anonymous blog.

Another way of looking at RRSPs

Financial writer Jamie Golombek presents a different way of looking at RRSPs:

"The refund associated with an RRSP contribution should not be considered a windfall but rather the present value of the future tax payment that will have to be made on the ultimate RRSP withdrawal (assuming tax rates are constant). In other words, the tax unpaid on the funds contributed to an RRSP is merely being deferred to a later point in time when the funds are ultimately withdrawn and taxed, either through an RRSP or RRIF withdrawal (or ultimately, upon death)."

I think that sums up the analogy well, without presenting it as a dispute, which I don't believe it is. It is just a different way of looking at RRSPs. The second Golombek article does not present this analogy. The Pitts article from CBC.ca does not present this "loan" analogy. The Jack MIntz reference also does not support this. The heading I've suggested could be improved. Ground Zero | t 13:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good approach, GZ! I would add a more elaborate explanation, or maybe include one of Golombek's examples as well. Professionals like you and me may know exactly what "present value of the future tax payment" means, but the layman might not understand that this tax deferral isn't free, but has an implied interest rate to it - it grows at the same rate as the growth of the entire RRSP principal.

As for the title, how about something like, RRSP tax "refund", or Analysis of the tax deferral? I'd put the whole thing as a section between "Withdrawals" and "Special withdrawal programs", but it can also work as a subsection under the "Effects" section.

I'm happy leaving this in your capable hands. Let me know if you need any help. Owen× ☎ 15:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added in Golombek's perspective to the Effects section, and put it in more plain language as you suggested. I haven't included an example to compare RRSPs to TFSAs. The two are mathematically equal if - and only if - tax rates are the same when contributions and withdrawals are made. In practice, that is unlikely ever to be the case because:

1. most higher income people are in a lower tax bracket when they retire,
2. lower income people may face higher effective tax rates in retirement than they faced while working because of clawback rates on GIS and refundable tax credits, and
3. governments tend to change tax rates, especially when looking over ten or more year horizons.

I think that the mathematical equivalence is of interest to policy wonks, and I wouldn't object to a clear explanation of this point (and its limited applicability in the real world), if someone were willing to do it, but I'm not because I don't think it is important in an article for a general audience like Wikipedia's.

I also did not add the "list of benefits" that User:24 wants to add because the only reference seems to be the retailinvestor.org anonymous blog.

I am always willing to continue the discussion and consider further improvements. Regards, Ground Zero | t 22:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Further edits

I have done a thorough review of User:24's edits, and found some to have merit, so I have put those in, with improvements to wording as appropriate. I hope that this will get out of the way some of the points of dispute, while improving the article. I am always will to discuss other changes. Ground Zero | t 22:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have also clarified in the opening paragraph that the RRSP has tax advantages "compared to investing outside of tax-preferred accounts" because of the discussion that occurs in some sources comparing RRSPs to TFSAs, i.e., they are mathematically equal if tax rates remain the same for the planholder. While I don't think that condition is often met in the real world, I think that the clarification is worth making, and may address one of User:24's concerns. Ground Zero | t 22:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

OwenX and GroundZero are Wikipedia 'Administrators' who Can and Will Enforce Their POV by Blocking Dissent

Readers should know that even though there are rules prohibiting Administrators from using their powers in disputes of their own, OwenX and GroundZero used their power to 'Block' me from editing. You can see the issue on my home page. IMO they should have their Administrators status revoked and be permanently banned from posting on this page.

I have now reinstated yet again the edits they have been Undo'ing repeatedly since December.

1. The section on Contributions is factually wrong. If readers follow it they could end up with mega fines and penalties. OX and GZ have repeatedly Undo'd this edit without ever asking "Why is the edit necessary? What is wrong with the existing section?" The error seems perfectly obvious to me by looking at the edit. Their refusal to allow any correction shows they are not qualified to edit this page.
2. After Undo'ing User207.102.255.247 edit 4 times (Dec 27, Dec 30 twice and Feb 27) they finally think his edit of 'what happens on death' to be OK enough to be allowed to stay with some light editing. How open-minded of them.
3. The description of Taxation rules has been restated ("Withdrawals are taxed as income") without the the slant OX and GZ try to force on all users ("Withdrawals of both income and contributions are taxable as income"). The conceptual model they like says that profits earned in the account are taxed on withdrawal. They refuse to accept that many people (now 8 found) use a model where the taxes paid on withdrawal are an allocation of principal, or a paying back of a loan, or just the future value of the original tax reduction (there are many analogies that work). They seem unable to appreciate the difference between tax laws and the procedures vs. conceptual models. This shows again that they are not qualified to edit this page.
4. The idea that distributions from Registered Pension Plans comes from "income and contributions" shows their lack of qualifications to edit this page. Pension benefits are hugely from mortality credits - that is what makes them so beneficial. Come to think of it.... RRSP's contributions can also come from mortality credits when your spouse died and you were given the remaining balance.
5. The list of RRSP benefits per GZ and OX is their own personal list. It does not reflect the listed benefits at the official sites. The first benefit listed by all the official sites is completely missing from their list. This is them throwing their weight around without any regard for the facts.
6. GZ and OX seem to think this is kindergarten where everyone is a winner. ("...without presenting it as a dispute, which I don't believe it is. It is just a different way of looking at RRSPs"). If you believe profits are taxed on withdrawal then you cannot claim that profits are never taxed. If you believe that the original tax reduction fully funds the eventual taxes on withdrawal then you cannot claim it creates a benefit. The total lack of comprehension here shows that they are not qualified to edit this page.
7. The arguments they are now using to dismiss the supporters of the 'other' conceptual model continue to show they total lack of comprehension. The Retail Investor site is the only place where the topic of the page is itself 'the conceptual model'. But the other references are 'using' that same model for their analysis of the specific topic of their own article. Or in Golombek's case he is trying to present the same idea using what he thinks is a more persuasive argument. Different analogies will work to support the same conceptual model. There was a pretty good one in the media yesterday using 'school lunches'.

24.85.94.77 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So many issues. Let's try to deal with them one by one.

1. Your version of the Contributions section did not make much sense. it needed to be re-written so that an average reader would understand it. I have sourced my edits from the Globe and Mail and CRA. What specifically do you think is wrong with my version?
2. The edits referred to here were not just on this point - each of the edits made a whole bunch of changes to the article. The Dec 27 edit by User207.102.255.247 also made a dog's breakfast of the formatting of the article. There is no way that sort of editing is helpful. The article history shows that the Dec 30 and Feb 27 edits were not by User207.102.255.247, but by User:24.85.94.77, i.e., by you or someone with the same IP address as you. It would be useful for you to register as an editor so that you would have a unique identifier for your edits. There is, of course, no requirement that you register, but it would avoid confusion. And these edits included the usual formatting, spelling, capitalization and punctuation errors, and a passage referenced to an invalid source.
3. "They seem unable to appreciate the difference between tax laws and the procedures vs. conceptual models." Um, if the Income Tax Act says that withdrawals (i.e., the original contributions plus income earned in the plan) are taxed when they are withdrawn, then they are taxed when they are withdrawn. Wikiepdia should not say otherwise, unless it is made clear that we are talking about an analogy to illustrate something, or another way of looking at something. I am okay using another conceptual model, such as explained by Golombek, but that does not mean that the tax law is wrong, or that it is wrong to illustrate the system the way it does actually work. No-one - not Golombek or anyone else (but retaininvestor) says that income is not taxed on withdrawal. They only use the other conceptual model as an illustration. An analogy is "A relationship of resemblance or equivalence between two situations, people, or objects, especially when used as a basis for explanation or extrapolation." It is not a disagreement, or a dispute.
4. Suggesting that someone is not qualified to edit an article violates Wikipedia policy.
5. The claim that the first benefit identified in the references is missing from the list is incorrect. My version says: "Taxes are deferred through a deduction claimed in calculating taxable income." The Get Smarter about Money reference says: "Tax deferral – You'll pay tax on your RRSP savings when you withdraw them from the plan. That includes both your investment earnings and your contributions." The RBC reference says: "The total amount of your annual contribution can be deducted from your gross income at tax time, reducing the amount you pay in income tax that year."
6. "GZ and OX seem to think this is kindergarten where everyone is a winner." Please do not make personal attacks. They violate Wikipedia policy. See WP:NPA. "If you believe profits are taxed on withdrawal then you cannot claim that profits are never taxed." I don't claim that. Of course they are taxed. They are taxed on withdrawal. "If you believe that the original tax reduction fully funds the eventual taxes on withdrawal then you cannot claim it creates a benefit." Whether the original tax deduction fully funds the eventual tax on withdrawal; depends on how the individual's tax rate changes. The individual may move to a lower (or higher) tax bracket, and tax rates may be changed by government over the period the RRSP is held. Tax rates have changed often since RRSPs were introduced.
7. "The Retail Investor site is the only place where the topic of the page is itself 'the conceptual model' ." This is the crux of the problem. I believe that User:24 is extrapolating what other people are writing to try to find support for retailinvestor.org -- support that isn't there. If there were solid support from other sources, then there would be no need to rely on a site that does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source.

In order to have a useful discussion on the question of the validity of retailinvestor.org, we need to know whether User:24 is associated with that website. Are you the author of retailinvesor.org? Are you a contributor to it? User:Ground Zero (not logged in) 173.206.201.90 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The following is from 24.85.94.77 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• (1)Maybe the edit to Contributions did not make sense to you because you refuse to admit you may have been wrong. So glad you finally asked after three months and all those Undo's. E.g. Start with a blank slate. My guy earns a salary that qualifies him (at the going %) to make a $10,000 contribution. His contribution room at that time = $10,000. My guy makes the $10,000 contribution. His maximum allowed deduction is now $10,000 (assume no other stuff like pensions). He decides to delay claiming the deduction until a later year. He earns no income in the following year. What is his Contribution Room and max Allowed Deduction now? You say they are the same, and that he can contribute another $10,000 because 'that is what the Allowed Deduction Statement says'. You say he can repeat this process forever, contributing another $10,00 every year, but not making any deduction, even though he only had a job in the first year.

• (2) You two have Undo'd every edit made for three months. You always claim the edits are a dog's breakfast, unclear, misleading, bad punctuation, bad spelling, bad formatting, etc, etc. - about which no one can DO anything because it specifies nothing. Maybe that is the reason you use that excuse. If you want different punctuation, spelling, formatting, etc, then change it yourself. Do no Undo. I am not User207.102.255.247 and no one else uses my computer so the IP address could not have been the same.

• (3) Including the words "of both income and contributions" in a description of the Taxation rule that "Withdrawals are taxed as income" adds nothing to any understanding of the rules. There is no calculation of income or contributions when you add the withdrawal value to your taxable income. It makes no difference how the value of the account grew - what you withdraw is taxable. The account's value grows from other sources than "income and contribution" so even if the subject were "how does the account grow?" it would be incomplete.

Your insistence on this wording derives from your refusal to admit that all the powers-that-be may be wrong in their understanding of where the RRSP's benefits come from. You call anyone daring to make the claim "trading in hysteria and conspiracy theories". You are even proud of refusing to look at the evidence. Try opening up your mind to possibilities. What the Tax Act says is Sec146.3(5) "There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year all amount received by him in the year out of or under a RRIF other than ...." and in Sec146(8) "There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year all amounts received by him in the year as a benefit out of or under a RRSP other than ...".

• (4) Answer the criticism. Which was -- Your statement that distributions from Registered Pension Plans comes from "income and contributions" shows a complete lack of understanding of pensions. Pension benefits are hugely from mortality credits - that is what makes them so beneficial." Don't hide behind 'policy rules' Those rules exist in order to make a better Wiki page. They are not an end in themselves. They are not there to shield those abusing their powers.

• (5) Answer the criticism. Which was -- Your chosen list of RRSP benefits fails to include the #1 benefit listed on all the official sites. Your answer ignores all the official sites. Your answer tries to pretend that your list does include the missing factor. You force me to post their various wordings verbatum here.

According to the official sites referenced in my edit, the #1 benefits are: "1. Tax-deductible contributions – You get immediate tax relief by deducting your RRSP contributions from your income each year", and "1. Contributions are tax deductible", and "“An RRSP helps you save for retirement while providing an immediate tax benefit when you make an RRSP contribution", "1. The contributions you make to your RRSP are tax-deductible". It should be blatantly obvious that your claim is completely different ("Taxes are deferred through a deduction claimed in calculating taxable income"). The official sites make THAT claim as an additional benefit. Why do you need this spelt out in excruciating detail instead of admitting your slanted edit is wrong?

• (6) You cannot pick and choose, add and subtract whichever selection of factors you personally want to believe totals up to the RRSP's Net Benefit$ ---- and then pretend that everyone agrees and we all love each other. If NetBenefit$ = $factorA + $factorB there is not way that NetBenefit$ = $factorA + $factorB + $factorC unless $factorC = $0. If $factorC=0 then it is NOT a benefit. Just because you refuse to look at the math proof does not mean that basic math rules go away.

You try to argue "I don't claim that .." because you look only at the specific words used - and completely ignore their meaning. You then proceed to mix up the RRSP rules/procedures with the conceptual model that explains the math proof of the calculation of benefits ---- again!. You refuse to read the Retail Investor page so you force me to quote here ..."Some people are stuck in the 'mechanics' of the RRSP and believe the mechanics prove the 'benefits'. They are likely to state "Income earned inside the RRSP is only tax-deferred, not tax-free, because the total balance of the account is taxed on withdrawal.". This POV is wrong because it isolates only one part of the RRSP system and ignores the other parts. The money you save must do a full round-trip into and out of the RRSP before you can use it. The mechanics of both the contribution and withdrawal come into play. The individual steps don't prove the net result. You cannot pick just one step and conclude it proves a benefit (or cost). It is the net benefit that counts."

• (7) You cannot make any claim about whether Retail Investor's conceptual model and math proof is or is not supported by other --- because you refuse to read the site. Willful ignorance is not an excuse. When you clearly don't understand what a conceptual model or math proof is, there is no way you can recognize it being used elsewhere. You should not presume to have any opinion. The fact that there is 'no need' to do anything on Wiki is not an excuse to censor the only site that clearly shows 'how' the opinions/advice of others can be assessed - the only site showing how those references I gave ARE all using the same model. You personally strongly want to censor other people's access to that understanding. Be very clear that readers are free to make up their own minds. They don't need you making their decisions for them.

24.85.94.77 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)