Subscribe by email
Recent Posts
- Do you want the 2009 Grant? Make sure to contribute to your RDSP by December 31st, 2009!
- Impact of the RDSP – BC Scan of Services and Benefits
- TD Canada Trust begins offering RDSPs
- Registered Disability Savings Plan is celebrated by PLAN, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Rick Hansen, and the Honourable Steven Fletcher
- Mapping your Plan – Why it is important to tell your financial advisor exactly how you want to use your RSDP
Downloads
Recent Comments
 | Jason Kaye on Payments from an RDSP – … |
 | Doug Brodhead on Payments from an RDSP – … |
| Doug Brodhead on Payments from an RDSP – … |
 | Candida Clarke on Payments from an RDSP – … |
| Doug Brodhead on Do you want the 2009 Grant? Ma… |
Provinces/Territories
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- August 2007
- June 2007
Top Posts
- Do you want the 2009 Grant? Make sure to contribute to your RDSP by December 31st, 2009!
- Return to RDSP.com
- Mapping your Plan - Why it is important to tell your financial advisor exactly how you want to use your RSDP
- TD Canada Trust begins offering RDSPs
- Payments from an RDSP - An Effort to Make it Understandable
- RDSP Fact Sheet
- Do I need to be approved for the Disability Tax Credit before I set up an RDSP?
- New Family Income Levels for 2009 Grant and Bond!
- RDSP, RESP, and RRSP - A Comparison
- Impact of the RDSP - BC Scan of Services and Benefits
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 10, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Margo Bok
Are there any plans to extend the age limit to be eligible for the grant and bond portion of the RDSP for those people with disabilities who are 49 and over?
We have been getting persons with disabilities commenting that they feel that they will miss out on the full opportunity to take part in this initiative because they are “too old”. The age ceiling is too low as many people with disabilities are not working or still working even though many are doing so sporadically or not on sustainable income.
However, it does seem that if there is a ceiling to how much the government is willing to contribute/individual, the question raised is it should not matter when the person enters the program as long as they meet the ceiling of government contributions.
Margo Bok
mbok@islandnet.com
November 1, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Mr. Choi
Hi:
I am 50 years old and have started home dialysis two years ago. Since I have taken up dialysis, I have swtiched to a lower income job.
RDSP is a good plan except that the age limit at 49 has shut me out of this plan.
I agreed with Margo that there is improvement to be made regarding RDSP.
Please let me know how I can raise this to the government.
Thank you
Choi
November 2, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Doug Brodhead
Hi Mr. Choi,
It something that we have heard often since the launch of the RDSP in December of 2008, and I think it is a very good point. The RDSP is a great mechanism and will be useful for many people, but it does not necessarily work for everyone. Part of what we have been doing in the last year since the plan was launched is to track comments and feedback around what is working and what isn’t. Your comments, along with those from others, are really important in helping us figure out what needs to be improved.
I would encourage you to write to your local MP and the Finance Minister and outline your concerns. PLAN will be doing some advocacy work to make sure people’s concerns around the plan are raised, but it always helps to write a letter on your own.
February 14, 2009 at 12:28 am
Lillian
If one decides to move to another country after setting up the RDSP, how will it affect the RDSP?
Thank you!
February 24, 2009 at 5:41 am
jim russell
The calculator refers to family income and the grant calculation is different depending on family income. Is the “family” the adult setting up the account and his/her immediate dependents (spouse, children) or does it include his/her parents and their incomes? I can’t find reference to this on your website.
November 1, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Jason Kaye
Hi Jim,
I think it is the same as what the CRA considers to be family income that you put on your taxes every year, but I would still contact the government at RDSP-REEI-GD@hrsdc-rhdsc.gc.ca.
February 26, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Dennis
The “family income” is that of the beneficiaries parents if the beneficiary is under 18 and if the beneficiary is an adult the the family income used is that of the beneficiary and his/her spouse only.
November 14, 2009 at 1:15 am
Caesi Bevis
I have read the comments here and I concur and have an additional major point to ‘bring up’…and yes, I will be a ‘letter-writer’. I sent one email note off to the Policy section of HRSDC so far on this.
Info I have clarfied today – the RDSP, maybe this is common knowledge, maybe not, is a CRA Plan – and thus it is using the CRA definition for “what is ‘disabled?”
Herein lies the foundation problem, as I see it: we have many operating definitions of “disability” existing in Canada and in turn in the provinces (provincial disability – cheque-receiving or MSO status, CPP, CRA, BC Ferries, Fuel Fax Rebate, HandiDart, HandiPass, each individual community centre, property tax, CMHC, Van City’s programs, private disability policies, PLAN, VELA, SPARC, etc. etc.
Then HRSDC, posturing to look like it has created a great program for grants and bonds, bases its ‘working qualifier’; not on the more likely CPP definition, or the provincial disability definitions – which I would strongly suggest are exceedingly more liberal than the most restrictive of all CRA’s definition – but on only the CRA definition!
As those of us managing disability issues on a day -to-day basis know, “disability” is a spectrum even within the “permanent disability” category, and further complicated by multiple disabilities, or the occasional temporary disability overlapping our permanent ones. While people with disabilities are grateful for disability cheques, pensions, etc., they are many times kept at poverty level because programs do not cover the cost of living – or even trying to get back to work as a self-employed person.
This factor costs the federal and provincial government SO much money because of short-sightedness. If money and programs truly supported the people that the government wants to appear to ‘help’, more people could get off of Benefits. Just what are the numbers of people with disability(ies) whose disability (ies) are further exacerbated by ’situational depression’ from trying to make ends meet with so little money – and then ‘made wrong’ for not ‘having better money-management skills’?
The bottom line: the Plan and Program are severely flawed if the goal was to be ‘inclusive’ and not ‘outrageously discriminatory’. Basing the Plan and Program on the discriminatory CRA definition serves few except for a dispelling a lot of ‘hot air’ in a false claim. (“false” in the sense that if a program is promoted as ‘helping many’, and in fact can help extremely few’ it is a comission ‘truth’ — i.e. the real truth is in the details…the details here well, “suck”!
1. The age factor. Yes, CRA wants to use a 10-yr fund accumulation factor – but ‘why’ can’t that run until a selected age, vs. a mandated age 60?
2. HRSDC should, I think, base its grants and bonds qualifier on whether a person is identified by their doctor as ‘living with a permanent disability”, period. This would make its program “inclusive” not discriminatory. To quote the BC Ministry: “The RDSP allows you, friends, and/ or family to build LONG-TERM SAVINGS in an RDSP account. How many have read the qualifier for the CRA “disability” tax deduction? Sadly, it qualifies only the most disabled, and many terminally ill people – i.e. restrictive. So, I propose the CRA’s definition is targeting serving only people who likely won’t live long lives …which to me, seems to defeat the postured mission statement for the RDSP – LONG TERM.
By opening this up, HRSDC could make it possible to assist people with disabilities to better plan for LONG TERM – i.e help them have access to more funding to start a self-employed business working from home – around their disabilities, for example, or to have that down payment for a home, or the investment needed to get into a co-op housing project.
Bottom line – the way this is presently structured, what comes to mind to me, is the song “Another One Bites the Dust.” – sort of like “oops – another one didn’t live long enough to enjoy the fruits of the program…”
Common Canadian Government – people with disabilities sometimes need a hand UP – most don’t want a hand -out…or quasi-programs that are supposed to have people be so ‘grateful’ that you offered it – only to find out that qualifying for them is left to only a limited few. Let’s create programs that actually help the majority of people who really need them.
Think of this as a length of a hockey field and you have ‘hungry people’ who can walk at most 100 feet. Is it really fair to say you are ‘feeding them’ if you place the food that they need 200 feet away – and don’t offer a means for them to get to that 200 foot marker, through you or otherwise? At best, this program is another ‘tease’…
Yes – HRSDCs Program serves a small percentage of people well – and ut-hmmm….what about the rest of the likely 99%?????
Age discrimination — anyone checking into the Human Rights issue on this???
If it is a funding issue – why not have a lottery and select people that way for who gets grants and bonds, and who doesn’t? It would be more fair.