Retirement Incentives and Decisions across the Income Distribution: Evidence in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluate the retirement incentives embedded in Canada's retirement income system with attention to where individuals are located in the income distribution.We find that larger social security benefits are available to individuals with lower earnings in their work history because of the benefit income tests, but those from the top of the income distribution tend to enjoy longer lives over which they may receive benefits.Overall, we see greater Social Security Wealth among individuals from lower deciles.The implicit tax rates on continued work tend to be higher for workers from lower-earning deciles.Considering changes to actuarial adjustments associated with early pension take up, these implicit tax rates on work at older ages fell substantially after 2011.Our regression estimates confirm the importance of incentives on retirement behavior, with substantially larger effects for individuals in lower deciles.These effects are greater for women than men.In simulations, we show that changes to the actuarial adjustment had some impact on retirement rates by lowering the implicit tax on work.The overall redistributive effect of these induced retirement changes was fairly small, however, as the actuarial adjustments brought the system closer to actuarial fairness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".