I haven't explicitly included the annualized monthly payments for the car loan in my expenses.  The expense items I have in the Expenses section do not include the loan payments. I thought that adding the loan would take care of this for me.  Do I need to add the loan expense into the Expenses section for 2022, and/or for subsequent years?

Thanks a lot.  In my case, I would convert to an annuity with the same US company.  It would be US funds.  Apparently no withholding tax on payments.  

Hi. Is there any way to convert an IRA or 403B plan from the US to a registered annuity at a future date? I tried to do it through the "Incomes" section but the options for the purchase of the annuity are limited to RRSPs and RRIFs. Maybe there's a workaround but I couldn't figure one out. Thanks

Thanks for your quick and detailed response. I had not fully appreciated the implications of rebalancing each year, and your explanation of the behaviour I'm seeing now makes sense. I've changed the asset allocation as you suggested and the results are much better!

I am encountering results that don't make sense to me. In my second year of retirement (2023 in my scenario) the software is calculating a massive taxable capital gain, and selling-off many of my assets to pay for the taxes. Although I do have one particular equity with large (unrealized) capital gains, the detailed table that I exported to EXCEL shows that it is not even being sold. It's possible that I misconfigured something. I have been making adjustments to my accounts/investments trying to understand where the large taxable capital gain is coming from with no success.

Hello, I

was wondering if you have any suggestions on how to model a GIC ladder?  For example a 5 year ladder - with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 year rungs - where the maturing terms are reinvested into a new 5 year term - i.e. 1 year matures and is reinvested into a 5 year, 2 year matures and is reinvested into a 5 year, and so on.

I see that in the RATES/YIELDS/CURRENCIES section, I can select to have a specific GIC renew, but I'm assuming it keeps the same term length as it was originally set with - i.e. 1 year renews as 1 year, 2 year renews as a 2 year, and so on. What I'm doing as an alternative is just using a cash account (or 1 year GIC), with a yield set to the average annual interest rate of the GIC ladder. I imagine this gets me close enough, although it doesn't let me accurately model the length of time the GIC's are locked in and not available to be "spent". I thought I would ask you in case you have a clever way to model the ladder?

thanks

Hello! I was wondering how I might set-up the following scenario.

We lend privately to real estate investors using promissory notes.

We receive a high rate of interest income. I take this income and deposit it into our RRSPs.

Thanks!

Hello, I'm trying to figure out why deposits in my ACCOUNT TFSA TFSA_Client account are higher than what I'm depositing in them? The yearly deposit should be $4920 per year but it's closer to $8000 per year (my wife's TFSA deposits are fine).

Hi, my CCPC has amounts invested with no additional income. How to I reflect a 5% growth in the CCPC investment factoring in the dividend payments. I am already depleting the investment pool via dividends as personal income.

What operating system does this work on? Windows? Apple? Linux? Android? and what versions? I can't find any info on hardware and software requirements on your site. Thanks.

I'm wondering if you might have a demo account available that could be used to show friends MRA?

Will there be an email reminder sent when the annual renewal fee is due? Thanks

Hi. I just tried using MR again after many months. It won't let me enter different inflation rates for future years, it just allows one entry with no end date. I was able to successfully enter different prime rates for future years.

Both my partner and I have RRSP contribution room. I can't seem to figure out whether TIME MACHINE has made the contribution. Where does it show the contribution? Thanks

In the report for columns Account RRSP Balance, Deposit, Growth, I see numbers like this: $205,012.33 -$22,333.10 $10,623.04 $169,094.54 -$37,927.71 $6,029.77 ---- I assume the 2nd row Balance would be $205,012.33 -$22,333.10 + $10,623.04 =$193302.27 But I see $169,094.54 How do you get that number? I see this in all reports I generated. thanks for your help

I must be entering my GIC's incorrectly as it is throwing off my reports? First I don't see an option for GIC only fixed which shows up as bonds. Second I have not checked off the box to repurchase yet the model shows I am buying the GIC again in 2023? I have GIC listed as lowest priority also. I am finding the model is pulling from my spouse's RRSP in 2023 and therefore setting us up for a large tax bill. Can you let me know if it the addition of the GIC's on my last run that is causing this issue and if so how do I enter them properly?

LOL! If it makes you feel any better, the program just tacks on the climate incentive to reduce the final tax bill, it’s not part of the calculation. Given its uncertain future, it’s not indexed (that’s what I do to uncertain credits). So to negate it, just add a non-indexed expense of $490.00.

I didn’t think about the Climate Action Incentive payment.  I suppose I should have read the manual a little more thoroughly before submitting a comment.  But for me this raises a follow-up question.  Should the CAI payment be included in the tax calculation?  My opinion here leans towards no.  I’ll try to explain why. 
The first reason is that I consider the CAI payment to be short lived, at least relative to a 20 to 40 year financial projection.   This is just a guess, of course, because it’s impossible to predict what the existing government will do in the future, let alone trying to predict what a different federal government might do, or even a provincial government trying to distance itself from Ottawa.  If we have a rightward shift in the federal government, the Incentive might be eliminated along with the carbon tax itself.  If we stay the course or veer left, the payment will likely be eliminated or reduced over time without an associated change in carbon pricing.  Either way, I think the incentive is short lived.   I get that I’m attempting to predict the future and doing so is not a sound basis for a future-looking software algorithm.  But, when I compare the known degree of near-term tax error with the CAI payment NOT included versus the probable degree of long-term tax error with the CAI payment included, I tend to favour the former.
The second reason is that I don’t really consider the CAI payment to be a true tax component.  It’s included in the tax schedule and it is deducted from the tax owing.  But in my mind, it’s there only as a matter of government convenience, or as a means to eliminate a separate submission and payment process.  Convenience aside, IMO, the “correct” tax amount is the tax without the CAI payment deducted.
The question, then, is: How would I propose the CAI payment be included in the projection?  I'd suggest that it should simply be deducted from expenses.  The climate tax itself is essentially a consumption tax, so in my mind the refund that offsets the consumption should occur on the “consumption” side (i.e., expenses).  I’m not suggesting that the MRA should reduce expenses by the CAI payment in its calculation.  I think that would cause a lot of confusion in the numbers.  I think a better solution is for the user to deduct the CAI payment from expenses before he/she/they enters expenses into the app, assuming he/she/they believes the amount of the incentive is meaningful with respect to total expenses.  
To make a long story short, if that’s still possible, can I add to the wish list with a suggestion that a tick-box option be given to the user to defeat the CAI payment?  While this adds to the programming burden, it allows people like me to opt out.   Failing that, my suggestion would be for the core tax calculation to not include the payment and it be left to the user to integrate it into the expenses if it’s important.  My rationale is that I’m just not convinced that including the payment over the long term offers a better degree of projection accuracy than NOT including it.
Just my 2 cents.

(After composing this e-mail I reflected on it a bit.  How important is this, really.  A legitimate reply might be, "What's all the fuss about?  It's only a few hundred dollars and likely just noise in the overall calculation."  True that.)

I short-changed the Basic Tax Calculator's Alberta tax a wee bit. It calculates close to $575. But that's still substantially less than the $2056 that I think it should be. What am I missing?

So I solved the problem by using the retained earnings in the TIME MACHINE preflight, and getting rid of the revenue completely for 2023. This seemed to fix the salary payout and also doesn't affect the total networth.