Tax Support Measures to Revitalize Individual Pensions: Focusing on the Implications of the Canadian Personal Pension System (RRSP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, one of the pension plans, the Registered Retirement Savings Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “RRSP”) is actively used under the government’s support to ensure abundant retirement income. Canada’s RRSP is one of the tax deferral methods that replaces taxes to be paid with pensions, which greatly contributes to ensuring retirement income. Recently, due to the rapid aging of Korea, the importance of guaranteeing income for the elderly is increasing compared to the past. However, retirement pensions and personal pensions, excluding public pensions, are not very active. Therefore, it is urgent to prepare various policy measures to revitalize retirement pensions and individual pensions. Therefore, this study examines RRSP, one of the Canadian personal pension systems, and suggests a plan to revitalize the Korean Individual Retirement Plan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IRP’). It was intended to explore the implications of RRSP for Korea and to suggest various government support measures through this. Currently, Korea provides tax deductions only for the amount paid into personal pensions by the end of the year. However, the RRSP system in Canada allows additional payments to personal pension accounts without paying taxes to be paid by the end of the tax year, even if personal pensions are not paid by the end of the tax year. It operates a unique pension system that defers one’s taxable income and levies it at the time of actually receiving the pension. This not only reduces the tax burden but also greatly contributes to the guarantee of retirement income, so in Canada, it is becoming an essential personal pension system to guarantee retirement income. This system is expected to provide many implications for Korea’s personal pension system. In this study, I would like to argue as follows. First, it is necessary to enable post－payment in IRP. If the payment was made due to the payment limit in the previous year, a plan to allow additional payment in the following year should be considered. Second, retroactive payments should also be made possible in IRP. If payment was not made at all in the previous year, it is necessary to consider a plan that can be paid in addition to the previous year. Third, the person with income allows additional payments to the spouse. This study is meaningful in that it looked at cases of post－payment, retroactive payment, and additional payment of spouses in Canada as one of the support measures to guarantee retirement income in Korea.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".