What suggested supplemental income opportunities exist for a 70 year old Canadian retiree?
My initial thoughts would be an ESL teacher or a private tutor for various subjects would likely be the easiest ones to consider. Possibly there are some people that could use the help in their education that would work well.
Your total salary deferral cannot exceed $18K (as of 2016). You can split it between your different jobs as you want, to maximize the matching.  You can contribute non-elective contribution on top of that, which means that your self-proprietorship will commit to paying you that portion regardless of your deferral. That would be on top of the $18K. You cannot contribute more than 20% of your earnings, though. So if you earn $2K, you can add $400 on top of the $18K limit (ignoring the SE tax for a second here). Keep in mind that if you ever have employees, the non-elective contribution will apply to them as well. Also, the total contribution limit from all sources (deferral, matching, non-elective) cannot exceed $53K (for 2016). After looking at your profile, I see your age...28.  Still a baby.  At your age, and given your profession, there really is no need to build investment income.  You are still working and should be working for many years.  If I was you, I'd be looking to do a few different things: Eliminating debt reduces risk, and also reduces the need for future income.   Saving for, and purchasing a home essentially freezes rent increases.  If home prices double in your area, in theory, so should rent prices.  If you own a home you might see some increases in taxes and insurance rates, but they are minor in comparison.  This also reduces the need for future income. Owning real estate is a great way to build residual income, however, there is a lot of risk and even if you employ a management company there is a lot more hands on work and risk. Easier then that you can build an after tax investment portfolio.  You can start off with mutual funds for diversification purposes and only after you have built a sizable portfolio should (if ever) make the transition to individual stocks. Some people might suggest DRIPs, but given the rate at which you are investing I would suggest the pain of such accounts is more hassle then it is worth. You need a find a financial planner that will create a plan for you for a fixed fee. They will help you determine the best course of action taking into account the pension, the 403B, and any other sources of income you have, or will have. They will know how to address the risk that you have that that particular pension.  They will help you determine how to invest your money to produce the type of retirement you want, while making sure you are likely to not outlive your portfolio. First, to answer the question.  The benefit of a 401k is that you don't have to pay income tax on the money contributed nor do you pay capital gains tax on the money that accumulates.  You get that with the restriction that you can't willy nilly remove and contribute money to the account (and you are taxed on withdrawals, more severely if you do it before you are 65).  Similar sorts of restrictions apply to all retirement accounts which give tax benefits.  Now, for the 7000 not providing benefit.  Assuming a very modest 4% growth, over 40 years 7000 becomes 34,671. Not something to sneeze at (inflation, risk reward, blah, blah, blah, it is less than it looks, but 4% is really pretty low, the stock market averages anywhere from 7-&gt;10% and IIRC the bond market is somewhere around 5%).  Now, certainly, to avoid bankruptcy you should withdraw.  However, if it is possible, you will be best served by keeping the money in your 401k account.  The penalties and lost earning opportunities are pretty significant.  /u/BeatArmy99 [has the numbers](http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/2ct0qy/why_cant_i_access_my_401k_if_its_my_money/cjiorl7) for how much you lose by doing an early withdraw.  Don't do this lightly and I would suggest avoiding cashing out the whole thing if you can. "First, point: The CRA wants you to start a business with a ""Reasonable expectation of profit"". They typically expect to see a profit within 5 years, so you may be inviting unwanted questions from future auditors by using a breakeven strategy. Second point: If the goal is to pay as little tax as possible, you may want to consider having the corporation pay you as little as possible. Corporate income taxes are much lower than personal income taxes, according to these two CRA links: How it works is that your company pays you little as an outright salary and offers you perks like a leased company car, expense account for lunch and entertainment, a mobile phone, computer, etc. The company owns all of this stuff and lets you use it as part of the job. The company pays for all this stuff with corporate pre-tax dollars as opposed to you paying for it with personal after-tax dollars. There are specifics on meals & entertainment which modify this slightly (you can claim 50%) but you get the idea. The actual rate difference will depend on your province of residence and your corporate income level.  There is also a requirement for ""Reasonable Expenses"", such that the expenses have to be in line with what you are doing. If you need to travel to a conference each year, that would be a reasonable expense. Adding your family and making it a vacation for everyone would not. You can claim such expenses as a sole proprietor or a corporation. The sole-proprietorship option puts any after-expense profits into your pocket as taxable income, where the corporate structure allows the corporation to hold funds and limit the amount paid out to you.  I've seen this strategy successfully done first-hand, but have not done it myself. I am not a lawyer or accountant, consult these professionals about this tax strategy before taking any action." "With a healthy income its quite possible to contribute too much into 401Ks/IRAs.  For example, if your retired today and had 3 million or so, how much more would you need?  Would an extra million materially change your life?  Would it make you happier if you invested that extra in some rental properties or perhaps a business like a sandwich or ice cream shop where you have more direct control? This kind of discussion is possible as you indicate that you have taken care of your life financially.  It seems at odds with the negative press describing the woefully condition of the standard person's finances.  These articles ignore a very simple fact:  its because of bad behavior.  You, on the contrary, have behaved well and are in the process of reaping rewards.  This is where I feel your ""mental gymnastics"" originates.   Looking to engage in the rental market is no different then buying a franchise.  You are opening a business of your own.  You'll have to educate yourself and are likely to make a few mistakes that will cause you to write checks to solve.  Your goal is to minimize those mistakes.  After all, what do you know about the rental home business?  I am guessing not much.  Educate yourself.  Read and spend some money on taking knowledgeable people out for coffee.   In the end you should understand that although a poor decision may cost you money you cannot really make a bad decision.  Lets say you do buy a rental property, things go south, you sell for a loss, etc....  In the end the ""butchers bill"" is 50K or so.  Will that materially change your life?  Probably not.  The worst case is perhaps you have to work a year or two beyond the anticipated retirement age to make up that money.  No big deal." Pete, 25 years of inflation looks like 100% to me with back of napkin math. $220K will feel like $110K. In today's dollars, can you live on $110K?  (Plus whatever Social Security you'll get)? My concern from what you wrote, if I'm reading it correctly, is that you have this great income, but relatively low savings until now.  From the recent question Building financial independence I offered a guide to savings as it compares to income.  Even shifted 5 years for a later start, and scaled for a 70-75% replacement ratio, you should be at 2X (or $440K) by now. That's not a criticism, but an observation that you've been spending at a nice clip so far. The result is less saving, of course, but also a need for a higher replacement ratio.  Last, a 10% return for the next 25 years may be optimistic. I'm not forecasting doom or gloom, just a more reasonable rate of return, and wouldn't plan to see higher than 7-8% for purposes of planning. If I am wrong, (and if so, we can both laugh all the way to the bank) you can always scale back savings in 10-15 years. Or retire earlier.  Note: Pete's question asks about a 40 year old working till 65, but the comment below has him 48 and planning to work until 62. 14 years of $45K deposits total less than $700K. Even at 10%, it wouldn't grow to much more than $2M, let alone $5M. Question One: Question Two: Your best reference for this would be a brokerage account with data privileges in the markets you wish to trade. Failing that, I would reference the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group (CME Group) website. Question Three: Considering future tuition costs and being Canadian, you are eligible to open a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP). While contributions to this plan are not tax deductible, any taxes on income earned through investments within the fund are deferred until the beneficiary withdraws the funds. Since the beneficiary will likely be in a lower tax bracket at such a time, the sum will likely be taxed at a lower rate, assuming that the beneficiary enrolls in a qualifying post secondary institution. The Canadian government also offers the Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG) in which the federal government will match 20% of the first $2500 of your annual RESP contribution up to a maximum of $500. "Agreed. The idea that one goes into ""retirement"", or is expected to, at a certain age, is a little confusing to me.  Since when did it become not-the-norm to work until you had enough money saved up, and then stop working. While I take full advantage of retirement tax vehicles, the idea of a dedicated retirement fund, retirement benefits, pension payouts, etc... is a relic of the 1960s." Using a simple investment calculator to get a sense of scale here, to have 70k total, including the 500 a month invested, after ten years you just need returns of 2%.  To earn 70k on top of the money invested you would need returns over 20%.  To do that in five years you would need over 50% annual return. That is quite a big difference.  Annualized returns of 20% would require high risk and a very large amount of time invested, skill and luck.  2% returns can be nearly guaranteed without much effort. I would encourage you to think about your money more holistically. If you get very unlucky with investments and don't make any money will you not go on the vacations even if your income allows?  That doesn't make a lot of sense.  As always, spend all your money with the current and future in mind.  Investment return Euros are no different from any other Euros. At that point, the advice is the same for all investors try to get as much return as possible for the risk you are comfortable with.  You seem to have a high tolerance for risk.  Generally, for investors with a high risk tolerance a broadly diversified portfolio of stocks (with maybe a small amount of bonds, other investments) will give the most return over the long term for the risk taken. After that generally the next most useful way to boost your returns is to try to avoid taxes which is why we talk about 401(k)s so much around here.  Each European country has different tax law, but please ask questions here about your own country as well as you mention money.se could use more ex-US questions. "Are you not allowed the y5 option?   I'm no guru, but one thing that sticks out to me in that plan is the vesting period of 5yrs as opposed to 10, so the money is ""yours"" in half the time....so if after 5yrs, you find a better gig, you can roll those benefits into another account and manage them on your own (or just leave and draw on them when you are eligible)  Then again, knowing that many municipalities are in shit shape due to their pension benefit liabilities, they may be pushing to the longer vesting period to a) encourage you to stay employed there and/or b) allow them to keep the money should you leave before that 10yr period  Like I said, though- I'm def no guru, and that is only one aspect of these plans.  I'd personally reach out to a financial planner so they can game it all out for you and equip you with the info to make the best choice" Until you find a job, I would recommend doing nothing more than a bank checking account or a checking and savings account.  Some alternatives, such as savings bonds, would be okay if you were perfectly sure you did not need the money in the next six months.  Consider working for a place such as McDonald's in the meantime. Once you have stable employment, there are two paths you could take.  The first is a bond fund.  It would provide fair market returns for the time between now and the collection of social security.  The second would be a traditional annuity.  You have to be careful with them.  If it sounds much better than what others are offering, it is probably a scam.  Your interest in an annuity is that it will pay you money for as long as you live.  If you live to be 105 you will still be getting payments.  A bond fund would have run out of money long ago by that time. The biggest thing for you right now is getting to when Medicare takes over from private health.  Looking for any job is important right now to preserve cash. Although I do not normally recommend annuities, I do with smaller amounts of cash.  It is unlikely you will ever recover this sum again and the time remaining to save is very short.  The greatest challenge with an annuity is regret.  You can't get the money back once you have turned it into an income stream.  On the other hand, it will last as long as you live. The only important caveat is that if you are in poor health, then the bond fund would be better for you because you may not live to be very old. "This scheme doesn't work, because the combination of corporation tax, even the lower CCPC tax, plus the personal income tax doesn't give you a tax advantage, not on any realistic income I've ever worked it out on anyway.  Prior to the 2014 tax year on lower incomes you could scrape a bit of an advantage but the 2013 budget changed the calculation for the tax credit on non-eligible dividends so there shouldn't be an advantage anymore. Moreover if you were to do it this way, by paying corporation tax instead of CPP you aren't eligible for CPP. If you sit with a calculator for long enough you may figure out a way of saving $200 or something small but it's a lot of paperwork for little if any benefit and you wouldn't get CPP. I understand the money multiplier effect described above, but the tax system is designed in a way that it makes more sense to take it as salary and put it in a tax deferred saving account, i.e. an RRSP - so there's no limit on the multiplier effect. Like I said, sit with a calculator - if you're earning a really large amount and are still under the small business limit it may make more sense to use a CCPC, but that is the case regardless of using it as a tax shelter because if you're earning a lot you're probably running a business of some size. The main benefit I think is that if you use a CCPC you can carry forward your losses, but you have to be aware of the definition of an ""allowable business investment loss""." You don't seem to have any particular question to be answered. Your understanding of RRSPs seems to be very good.  Have you considered whether you might be better off putting your retirement savings into a TFSA instead? Both types can protect your growth from taxation (provided you reinvest the refund from the RRSP). The main way in which the RRSP is better than TFSA is that you can pay the tax on the contribution at a time when your income is lower, and thus have a lower marginal tax rate. Most people retire with a lower income than during their earning years, but it's a matter of tax brackets. If you think you'll be in the same bracket (same marginal tax rate) when you retire, then the TFSA and RRSP work out even in that regard. So in your case, the question you want to ask yourself is: when I retire, will I have an income (including CPP, OAS, pension payments, etc) that exceeds $45,282 worth of today's dollars? If so, your RRSP holds no advantage over the TFSA. In fact, the RRSP may even be worse, since the withdrawals count as income and reduce the amount of OAS and perhaps GIS payments that the government gives you - at least under current regulations. If you're unsure, I suggest you try this calculator from taxtips.ca that runs both scenarios and helps you see which one is more beneficial. It even factors in the OAS/GIS clawbacks. We need more info to give a better answer, but in short: if you assume you will make $0 in other employment income next year, there is a HUGE tax benefit in deferring 50k until next year. Total tax savings would probably be something like $15k [rough estimate]. If you took the RRSP deduction this year, you would save something like 20k this year, but then you would be taxed on it next year if you withdraw it, probably paying another 5k the year after. ie: you would get about the same net tax savings in both years, if you contributed to your RRSP and withdrew next year, vs deferring it to next year.  On a non-tax basis, you would benefit by having the cash today, so you could earn investment income on your RRSP, but you would want to go low-risk as you need the money next year, so the most you could earn would be something like 1.5k @ 3%. The real benefit to the RRSP contribution is if you defer your withdrawal into your retirement, because you can further defer your taxes into the future, earning investment income in the meantime. But if you need to withdraw next year, you won't get that opportunity.