Drops in the Bank of Canada rate will not solve housing affordability.

Spoiler Alert: The problem isn't just about interest rates

Dec 11, 2024

7 min

Summary: The Bank of Canada’s interest rate cuts won’t resolve Canada’s housing affordability crisis. Factors such as skyrocketing home prices, unaffordable down payments, and stagnant wage growth are other primary challenges to address. A personal example offered by the author shows how the price of her Toronto home surged over 1,000% from 1983 and 2024 while her wages during the same period rose only 142%. While some see this issue as a consequence of Baby Boomers remaining in their homes, it's more nuanced than that. We have systemic barriers in Canada that necessitate targeted policy changes. It’s time to tackle affordability and implement effective solutions.

The Bank of Canada met today, to determine interest rates for the last time this year. They announced a drop of .50 basis points. This is part of a broader effort to stimulate economic growth in Canada, which faces challenges, especially a softening labor market and persistent inflation.

Why Should You Care?

Interest rates determine how affordable our debt will be and what return we can expect on our savings. Since mortgages represent most consumer debt, interest rates directly impact affordable housing costs, making them very newsworthy. However, interest rates only tell part of the story.

When the Bank of Canada lowers its rate, it primarily impacts variable-rate mortgages. These are tied directly to the BoC's overnight rate, so a rate cut can reduce the interest costs on these loans. Homeowners with variable rates would likely see a reduction in their payments, with more of their payments going toward principal rather than interest. People without debt and savings (primarily seniors) will see a drop in their investment returns.

In contrast, fixed-rate mortgages, which are not directly tied to the BoC's rate, are influenced more by the bond market, particularly the 5-year government bond yield. The current trend in bond yields suggests that fixed mortgage rates could also decrease over time.

Let’s pause here and talk about the affordability of houses and how interest rates are not the reason housing is out of reach for most first-time buyers.

A walk down memory lane might offer some perspective.

I purchased my first home in the fall of 1983 for $63,500 (insert head shake). I was 27 years old, and before you do the math, yes, I am a Baby Boomer. My first serious (so I thought) live-together relationship had just ended, and I was looking for a place to live. I had finished school and had a good full-time job with Bell Canada. A rental would have been preferred, except I had a dog. Someone suggested that I buy a home. I did not know very much about purchasing real estate or homeownership, for that matter. But I was young and willing to learn.

I had been working full-time for two and a half years. During my orientation at Bell Canada, my supervisor told me to sign up for their stock option program. She said I would never miss the money or regret signing up for the plan. She was right. When I purchased my home, there was enough money in my stock account for a down payment and closing costs. My interest rate was a terrifying 12.75%, yielding a mortgage payment of just under $670 monthly. The lender deemed this affordable based on my $18,000 annual wage. Life was good.

This was in 1983, when the minimum down payment for a home purchase in Canada was typically 10% for most buyers. However, a lower down payment could be possible with mortgage insurance (provided by organizations like Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC), which allowed buyers to put down as little as 5%, provided they qualified for insurance. This was commonly available for homes under $150,000, with stricter terms for higher-priced homes.

If you had a higher down payment of 25% or more, mortgage insurance wasn't required, and you could avoid extra costs associated with insured mortgages. This was part of broader efforts by the government to make homeownership more accessible, especially amid the high interest rates of the time.

So let's do the math. Circa 1983

I first needed to prove that I had saved $3,175 in down payments and $953 in closing costs for $4128. In the 2.5 years I worked at Bell Canada, I saved $4,050 (including Bell Canada’s contribution) in stocks. I also had another $5,000 in my savings account. $9,000 was enough to complete the transaction and leave me with a healthy safety net.

Fast forward to 2024

Let’s compare what the same transaction would look like today. Using the annual housing increase cited on the CREA website, the same house would be valued at approximately $700,000 today. Interest rates are much lower today, at 4.24%, yielding a mortgage payment of $3,545.

1. The down payment rules have changed. For the first $500,000, The minimum down payment is 5%. 5% X 500,000=25,0005\% \times 500,000 = 25,0005% X 500,000 = $25,000

2. The minimum down payment for the portion above $500,000 is 10%.

10% X (700,000−500,000) = 20,00010\% \times (700,000 - 500,000) = 20,00010% X (700,000−500,000) = $20,000

3. Total minimum down payment:

25,000+20,000 =4 5,00025,000 + 20,000 = 45,00025,000+20,000 = $45,000

Thus, the minimum down payment for a $700,000 home is $45,000.

Here is the comparison:

1983 Scenario 2024 Scenario Variance

Purchase Price: $63,500 $700,000 up 1002%

Down Payment: $3,175 $45,000 up 1317%

Loan Amount: $60,325 $655,000 up 986%

Interest Rate: 12.75% 4.24% down 200%

Monthly Mortgage Payment: $670 $3,545 up 429%

Wage: $18,000 $43,500 up 142%

Gross Debt Service Ratio: 44.6% 97.8% up 119%

Time to Save for Down payment:

2 years 12.4 years up 520%

*Please note that this example does not include mortgage insurance

The real problem

As you can see, housing was much more affordable for me in 1983 and far from cheap in 2024. During the past 41 years, wages have increased by 142%, yet interest rates have dropped by 200%. But the most significant impact on affordability has been the over 1,000% increase in housing prices.

So why is all the focus on interest rates?

At the risk of oversimplifying a complicated issue, I believe the media often uses interest rates as a "shiny penny" to capture attention, diverting focus from deeper housing affordability issues. This keeps the spotlight on inflation and monetary policy, aligning with economic agendas while ignoring systemic problems like down payment barriers and the shortage of affordable homes.

Indeed, a movement in interest rates often has an immediate and noticeable impact on borrowers' affordability, making it a hot topic for news and policymakers. However, the frequency and consistency of the Bank of Canada meetings on interest rates give the impression that rates are the primary issue, even though they are just one part of a complex system. For example, even if the Bank of Canada dropped interest rates below zero, it would do little to solve today’s homeownership affordability issue.

The real problems:

1. Down Payment Challenges: With housing prices skyrocketing, the 5%- 20% down payment required has become insurmountable for many, particularly younger buyers. High rents, stagnant wage growth relative to home prices, and rising living costs make saving nearly impossible.

2. Lack of Affordable Starter Homes: Due to profitability and zoning restrictions, housing developments often prioritize larger, higher-margin homes or luxury condos over affordable single-family starter homes.

3. Misplaced Generational Blame: Blaming Baby Boomers for "holding onto homes" oversimplifies the issue. They are staying put due to limited downsizing options, emotional attachments, or the need for housing stability in retirement, not a desire to thwart younger generations.

4. Political Challenges: Addressing structural issues like zoning reform or incentivizing affordable housing construction requires political will and collaboration, which can be slow and contentious.

A broader lens is needed to understand and address the actual barriers to home ownership. Interest drops are merely a band-aid solution that misses the central issue of saving a down payment.

The suggestion that we have an intergenerational issue needs to be revised. The fact that Baby Boomers are holding on to their homes should not surprise anyone. However, Real Estate models that predicted copious numbers of Baby Boomers selling their homes to downsize got it wrong. Downsizing was a concept conceived in the 1980s. Unfortunately, it did not account for record-setting home price increases or inflation, leaving it undesirable for today’s seniors.

Although this is a complex issue, a few suggested solutions are worth exploring.

What can be done?

Focus on Policy Innovations:

To create housing, increase supply, curb speculative investments, and provide targeted assistance for builders to build modest starter homes.

To create rentals, homeowners should also receive income tax incentives to build Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). These could be used as affordable rentals or to house caregivers for senior homeowners. Today, The federal government announced a doubling of its Secondary Suite Loan Program, initially unveiled in the April 2024 budget. This is a massive step in the right direction.

To create down payments, adopt a policy allowing first-time home buyers to avoid paying tax on their first $250,000 of income. Then, they could use the tax savings as a down payment.

Focus on Education and Advocacy:

Include a warning that helps consumers understand that withdrawing from RSPs results in a significant loss of compound interest related to withdrawals and how this can harm income during retirement.

Encourage early inheritance to create gifted down payments. Normalize the concept by emphasizing the benefits to the giver and the receiver.

Educate the public on using financial equity safely and create down payments as an early inheritance for their heirs. This will shift the conversation and initiate an intergenerational transfer of wealth that empowers the next generation to own a home.

The Bottom Line

While the Bank of Canada interest rate cut may ease some financial strain for homeowners with variable-rate mortgages, it will do little to address the core issue of housing affordability. The media's fixation on interest rates as a "shiny penny" distracts from more profound systemic barriers, such as the inability to save for a down payment and the lack of affordable housing stock. These challenges require targeted policies, structural reforms, and intergenerational collaboration to be tackled effectively.

The focus must shift from short-term rate adjustments to long-term solutions that prioritize accessibility and affordability in housing. Without meaningful action, homeownership will remain out of reach for many, perpetuating the cycle of financial inequity across generations.

Dont't Retire... Re-Wire!

Sue

Find Experts

Jul 29, 2026

5 min

There's No Such Thing as the Average Canadian Retiree. There Are Three.

You've seen the photo. Silver-haired couple on a sailboat, or walking on a beach at golden hour, laughing about nothing in particular. It's on the cover of every retirement brochure ever printed. It's what "the average Canadian retiree" looks like. In thirty years of banking, I never met that couple. I met a widow in her seventies deciding between a dental crown and her property taxes. I met a couple in their sixties quietly draining their RRSPs to keep a grandchild in university. And yes, I met people with sailboats, though they weren't asking me about retirement income. They were asking about estate freezes and charitable foundations. Three conversations. Three completely different Canadians. And after three decades of having them, most recently as a vice president at one of Canada's Schedule I banks, I've come to believe our biggest retirement problem isn't that Canadians plan badly. It's that we keep designing for an "average retiree" who doesn't exist. In The Canadian Retirement Evolution, a report newly published by EY that I was proud to co-author, I make the case for seeing Canadian retirees as three distinct groups. 1) Retirees in Need (roughly 30%) Nearly one-third of Canadian retirees are living close to the edge. Limited pension income, modest personal savings, and rising living costs define their retirement. Adding to the pressure, retirement debt is becoming the new reality. According to Royal LePage, 29% of Canadians who are recently retired or approaching retirement expect to continue making mortgage payments on their primary residence. For many Canadians, debt has become a permanent companion, extending well into what should be their most financially secure years. Perhaps the most troubling reality is this. Most people in this group have never received professional financial advice. The Canadians who need planning the most are often the Canadians the financial planning industry reaches the least. That should concern every financial institution, advisor and policymaker in this country. When retirement arrives with too little income, too much debt and no plan, the result is not just financial stress. It is anxiety, reduced independence and difficult choices that no Canadian should have to make after a lifetime of work. 2) Retirees Seeking Stability (roughly 60%) This is the majority of Canadian retirees, and the group that the sailboat photo completely misses. They are not financially struggling, but neither are they financially free. They have enough to retire, but not enough to stop worrying. What they want is simple. They want to maintain the lifestyle they spent forty years building. They want confidence that their money will last as long as they do. They want a retirement plan that offers stability and predictability. And they want the freedom to help the people they love, whether that's contributing to a grandchild's education, helping with a first home, or lending a hand when life throws one of their children an unexpected curveball. That is where retirement becomes complicated. Retirement has changed dramatically over the past three decades, but much of the advice Canadians receive has not. The result is a growing gap between today's retirement realities and yesterday's retirement plans. Every dollar shared with family is one less dollar available to fund their own future. Every unexpected expense raises the same unsettling question: Will I still have enough? This group lives in the space between abundance and anxiety. They have assets, but not always confidence. They have choices, but every choice comes with trade-offs. They don't need a miracle. They need a plan that provides stability, predictability, and the confidence to enjoy the retirement they worked so hard to earn without constantly wondering if today's decisions will become tomorrow's regrets. 3) Affluent Retirees (roughly 10%) The remaining ten percent focuses on sophisticated wealth management: transferring wealth to the next generation, structuring estates to minimize taxes, and giving philanthropically. These are good problems to have, served by an entire industry built to solve them. And that's the uncomfortable truth hiding in the framework: most of our retirement advice, most of our products, and most of our planning tools were designed with this group in mind. Retirement Fear Has a Name In 1990, more than 70% of Canadian workplace pension plans were defined benefit plans, providing predictable, guaranteed lifetime income. By 2022, that figure had fallen to just 37%. In the span of a single working generation, we quietly shifted the risk of outliving retirement savings from institutions to individuals. The anxiety created by that shift is something I encountered in thousands of conversations with Canadians throughout my lending career, long before I had a name for it. I call it FORO, the Fear of Running Out. In the EY report, we describe it this way: "Fear of running out (FORO) reflects a structural gap in retirement system design, not a failure of individual planning. Most retirement frameworks were built for accumulation rather than sustainable income in later life." That is the heart of the challenge. Canada's retirement system does an excellent job of helping people save, but far less to help them transform those savings into sustainable, predictable income throughout retirement. It is little wonder that so many Canadians approach retirement with uncertainty rather than confidence. The Elephant in the Living Room One final reality deserves far more attention. Canada is in the midst of one of the largest intergenerational wealth transfers in its history. Much of that wealth is tied up in residential real estate, owned by Canadians who consistently say they want to remain in their homes for as long as possible. That creates an important contradiction. The largest asset held by most Canadian households is also one of the least integrated into mainstream retirement planning. We encourage Canadians to build home equity for decades, then often ignore it when they need income the most. If retirement planning is meant to consider every available resource, why do we continue to overlook the largest one? Resolving that question has become the focus of my research and my forthcoming book, Your Retirement Reset: How to Convert Home Equity into Financial Security (ECW Press, September 2026). But that discussion extends beyond the scope of this article. For now, it is enough to recognize the disconnect. Retirement has changed. Canadians' balance sheets have changed. It may be time for retirement planning to change as well. A Retirement System Designed for Everyone The EY report reminds us that retirement is more than a financial milestone. It is one of life's most significant transitions, and every Canadian deserves to approach it with confidence, dignity and choice. That outcome will not be achieved with a retirement system designed around a single, hypothetical retiree. Canadians retire with different financial realities, different goals and different challenges. A retirement system that recognizes only one path will continue to leave too many people behind. Designing for the three retirement realities outlined in this paper is not simply good policy. It is good business. Financial institutions that tailor products, advice and education to meet the needs of all three groups will be better positioned to serve Canada's fastest-growing demographic. Policymakers who encourage that evolution will help create a retirement system that reflects the way Canadians actually live today, not the way they lived thirty years ago. The question is no longer whether retirement has changed. It has. The question is whether our retirement system will evolve quickly enough to meet Canadians where they are. Don't Retire... Re-Wire! Sue

Jul 27, 2026

3 min

Canadian Retirement Expert Susan Pimento Co-Authors Newly Released EY Report on the Future of Retirement in Canada

Former bank executive and Retire with Equity founder says "fear of running out" reflects a structural gap in retirement system design — not a failure of individual planning TORONTO, ON — July 23, 2026 — Susan Pimento, founder of Retire with Equity, is a co-author to The Canadian retirement evolution: Why financial institutions and policymakers must rethink retirement, a new report published today by EY examining how Canada's retirement landscape is changing — and why the systems built to support retirees are struggling to keep pace. The report arrives amid a structural shift in how Canadians fund retirement: in 1990, over 70 percent of Canadian workplace pension plans were defined-benefit schemes providing predictable lifelong income; by 2022, that figure had fallen to 37 percent — shifting investment risk, and the fear of running out onto individuals. Drawing on more than 30 years of senior leadership in Canadian banking and frontline lending, including serving as Vice President at a Schedule I bank, Pimento contributed a framework that groups Canadian retirees into three primary categories, each with distinct financial circumstances and priorities — a lens designed to help financial institutions and policymakers move beyond one-size-fits-all retirement planning. Sue Pimento is also the author of the forthcoming Your Retirement Reset: How to Convert Home Equity into Financial Security (ECW Press, to be released September 2026), "Fear of running out — FORO — reflects a structural gap in retirement system design, not a failure of individual planning," said Pimento. "Most retirement frameworks were built for accumulation rather than sustainable income in later life. Canadians aren't failing their retirement plans. In many cases, the plans were never designed for the retirement they're actually living." Pimento's contribution reflects the research focus of Retire with Equity, which provides retirement intelligence to Canada's financial sector on its fastest-growing and wealthiest demographic: adults 55 and over. Her forthcoming book examines how home equity — the largest asset most Canadian households hold — can be strategically converted into retirement income, and argues it belongs in every retirement conversation and product roadmap. "The industry has spent decades perfecting how Canadians save," Pimento added. "The next decade will be judged on how well we help them spend — sustainably, confidently, and without fear." The EY Report: "Canadian Retirement Evolution" is publicly available at: https://www.ey.com/en_ca/insights/financial-services/canadas-retirement-evolution Media availability: Susan Pimento is available for interviews and commentary on: retirement income design the three categories of Canadian retirees financial strategies for aging in place Intergenerational financial conversations about money (between seniors and their adult children) home equity strategies new ways for government and banks to serve the 55+ demographic About Susan Pimento Susan Pimento brings deep experience to the conversation on modern retirement strategies in Canada. With over 30 years of senior leadership in banking and frontline lending — including serving as Vice President at a Schedule I bank — she now advises financial institutions and policymakers on how to modernize retirement solutions and engage Canada's fastest-growing, wealthiest demographic: adults 55+. She is the founder of Retire with Equity and author of Your Retirement Reset: How to Convert Home Equity into Financial Security (ECW Press, September 2026). . Media Contact: Susan Pimento Website: www.retirewithequity.ca Email: sue@retirewithequity.ca

Jul 22, 2026

8 min

Everything Old Is New Again. Even Layaway.

I've noticed a flurry of articles lately about the explosive growth of Buy Now, Pay Later. The Globe and Mail reported that BNPL has gone fully mainstream, with Canadians across income levels stretching groceries and gadgets into “manageable” monthly bites. The Walrus ran a piece by Vass Bednar arguing that BNPL has quietly become a shadow credit system that doesn't show up on any credit bureau's radar until it implodes. Reading both, I couldn't help but smile. Not because the trend is amusing, quite the opposite. It's because we've been here before. Long before Klarna, Afterpay, Sezzle and Affirm, there were Sears, Woolworth's, Kmart and Leon's. Canadians had layaway. No app, no one-click checkout, no influencer urging you to split a purchase into four easy instalments. Just a patient store clerk, a paper receipt, and a straightforward deal: you made payments over time, and only after the last one cleared did you take the item home, along with the quiet pride of knowing you'd earned it. Delayed gratification wasn't a burden; it was simply how responsible people bought things. Try explaining that to a twenty-five-year-old today. “Wait... what? You paid for it, and they wouldn't let you take it home?” Over the past forty years, we quietly flipped the model upside down. Yesterday's philosophy was pay first, enjoy later. Today, we enjoy first, pay later. The payment schedule looks remarkably similar, but the psychology could not be more different. That took me straight back to my childhood, when my parents represented two entirely different schools of financial thought. To Dad, cash wasn't just king; it was emperor, prime minister, pope, and captain of the soccer team, all rolled into one. If he didn't have it, he didn't buy it. Mom's favourite line was different: “If I waited until I could afford it, I'd never get it!” One afternoon, she came through the door beaming and announced, “I saved a thousand dollars today!” This was the 1970s, real money, and we waited breathlessly to hear how. “I bought a baby grand piano,” she said. “It was four thousand, on sale for three. I saved a thousand dollars!” The room went silent. Technically, she wasn't wrong. Dad never fully embraced Mom's definition of “saving.” I believe he eventually paid off the piano. I'm less convinced he ever settled the argument. Looking back, I don't think they were arguing about money at all. They were arguing about time. Dad believed that sacrificing today made tomorrow easier. Mom believed that tomorrow would work itself out. If they were alive now, Dad would still be carrying cash in his wallet, and Mom would have four BNPL apps on her phone and know exactly which one had the best promo running. I suspect most of us carry a bit of both. We're remarkably good at convincing ourselves that Future Me will be wealthier, more disciplined, and generally more together than Present Me. Future Me will get the raise, won't mind another monthly payment, will eat well, will sleep eight hours, will exercise regularly, and will never procrastinate. Read that again. Now look in the mirror. Got you, didn't I? Future Me usually looks a lot like Present Me, just with a few more wrinkles and a little less earning power. Behavioural economists call this present bias, or hyperbolic discounting: we place a much higher value on immediate rewards than on future ones. Nobel laureate Richard Thaler and Shlomo Benartzi built much of their retirement research around this tendency, and their Save More Tomorrow program showed how much help people need to overcome it (Thaler & Benartzi, 2004). Once you see that, BNPL stops looking like a payment option and starts looking like brilliant behavioural design. A $2,000 purchase quietly becomes “only $83 a month.” The price hasn't changed; our perception has. That, not the payment plans themselves, is the real story: the tug-of-war between Present Me and Future Me. That explains why so many Canadians struggle to save for retirement and often arrive there wishing we decided differently decades earlier. Why Is BNPL Suddenly Everywhere? Convenience is only part of the answer. The real drivers are rising living costs, stubborn inflation, and a culture that's grown allergic to waiting. BNPL fits that mindset perfectly: Payments Canada data shows usage rising from roughly 9% in 2022 to 25% in 2024. Younger Canadians cite quick access to credit, while middle-aged Canadians call it a budgeting tool. One group sees borrowing; the other sees it as managing cash flow as paycheques stretch less far. A recent Globe and Mail report on Koho's Grocery Gap data found that BNPL use for groceries more than doubled between May 2025 and May 2026, while incomes barely budged. Dad would have hated that explanation. Mom would have reminded him that life doesn't wait for your savings account to catch up. Like most financial tools, BNPL is neither inherently good nor bad. A hammer can build a house or break a window, depending on who's holding it. If your furnace dies mid-winter, financing the replacement is one of the smartest moves you'll make. The same goes for emergency dental work or a computer you need for work. Those are investments, not expenses. Financing concert tickets or a smartphone upgrade because yours is eighteen months old is a different category, one where Future Me keeps paying long after Present Me has finished enjoying the fun. Whenever I'm unsure where a purchase belongs, I ask one question: will this make my financial life stronger a year from now, or will I still be paying for it? Retailers didn't embrace BNPL out of concern for our budgeting skills; they embraced it because it works. Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that offering BNPL at checkout increases sales by roughly 20%, largely by nudging people to spend more than they otherwise would (Berg et al., 2024). The product hasn't changed, and your income hasn't changed; only the payment method has. That's why “$89 a month” feels far less alarming than “$2,500,” even though the math is identical. A Word on Fraud Here's a related trend that concerns me, especially for older homeowners: be cautious when someone knocks on your door offering a new roof, windows, or solar panels for “only a few dollars a day.” Before signing, ask: did I think I needed this before the salesperson showed up? Sometimes yes. Roofs wear out. But sometimes the problem is manufactured right along with the financing, and a $25,000 renovation can sound reasonable when framed as “less than your cable bill.” Dad would have insisted on three quotes; Mom would have admired the enthusiasm. Listen to Dad: get multiple estimates, loop in someone you trust, and never sign on the spot. Read that again. Never sign on the spot! The RRSP Parallel and What Retirees Should Watch For BNPL also parallels something I wrote about recently in Canada's RRSP Program Has Too Many Jobs. The Home Buyers' Plan looks nothing like Buy Now, Pay Later on the surface, but look closer, and they sound alike. Both solve today's problem by borrowing from tomorrow's resources. It's helped thousands get into homes, and homeownership remains one of the best long-term wealth builders. But every dollar pulled from an RRSP stops compounding for retirement. We celebrate the house and quietly forget the retirement income we gave up for it, Present Me negotiating a deal Future Me eventually must honour. And Future Me always shows up, whether we're ready or not. It's tempting to think of BNPL as a young person's problem, but the psychological pull intensifies in retirement, not diminishes. When you're working, the next paycheque is a couple of weeks away. In retirement, every purchase competes with a finite pool of assets that may need to last thirty years. Financing groceries isn't a budgeting strategy; it's a signal that your income isn't keeping pace with your lifestyle. If every purchase starts with “what's the monthly payment?” instead of “can I actually afford this?” it's time to step back. I've long recommended imagining every purchase as a conversation with your retired self: would Future Me thank me, or wish I'd shown more restraint? Isn't a Reverse Mortgage the Same Thing? Some readers wonder whether reverse mortgages belong in this conversation. I'd argue they're nearly the opposite. Both involve money today and repayment later, but that's where the similarity ends. BNPL borrows against tomorrow's income to finance today's consumption, while a reverse mortgage, used appropriately, converts wealth you've already built into retirement income. One asks Future Me to earn more; the other recognizes that Past Me already did the heavy lifting. There's a world of difference between borrowing against tomorrow and drawing on yesterday's success. Whatever Happened to Paying Cash? Dad's advice was simple: if you can't pay cash, don't buy it. It's a little outdated now. Few of us carry cash anymore, and digital payments are so seamless that spending barely feels like spending. Tap, click, done. Maybe the rule just needs updating. Instead of “can I pay cash?” try “if I had to pay for this in full today, would I still buy it?” That shifts our focus from the monthly payment to the total cost and from affordability to value. BNPL isn't inherently good or bad; it's a tool like any other, and the real danger is forgetting that every financial decision is a negotiation between Present Me and Future Me. What My Parents Really Taught Me Looking back, my parents weren't really arguing about money; they were arguing about time. Dad taught me the value of patience and living within my means, and he understood instinctively what behavioural economists would later prove: delaying gratification pays remarkable dividends. Mom taught me something just as important: that life isn't meant to be spent waiting forever, and that some experiences create memories no investment account can measure. The wisdom lies in knowing the difference. Retirement requires both the discipline to save while working and the wisdom to enjoy what you've built. Save every penny and never spend it, and you've missed the point, tragically. Spend it all before retirement arrives, and biology has a nasty habit of showing up right on schedule, winning every time, just as tragically. Perhaps that's the real story behind Buy Now, Pay Later. It was never really about payment plans; it's about patience, priorities, and the lifelong conversation between who we are today and who we're becoming tomorrow. Present Me always gets the microphone, while Future Me waits quietly in the wings, hoping today's decisions leave something to work with. Next time you're offered four easy payments, ask the better question: will Future Me thank me for saying yes? Someday, Future Me becomes Present Me, and that's the day we find out whether today's purchase was an investment in our happiness or just another bill waiting, not so patiently, for retirement. I have a feeling Dad would smile reading this, quietly certain he'd finally won the argument. Mom would smile too, already wondering if she could get that validation in four easy instalments, and still call it saving money. Don’t Retire … Re-Wire! Sue

View all posts

Drops in the Bank of Canada rate will not solve housing affordability.

Spoiler Alert: The problem isn't just about interest rates

Read More

There's No Such Thing as the Average Canadian Retiree. There Are Three.

Canadian Retirement Expert Susan Pimento Co-Authors Newly Released EY Report on the Future of Retirement in Canada

Everything Old Is New Again. Even Layaway.

You might also like...

There's No Such Thing as the Average Canadian Retiree. There Are Three.

Canadian Retirement Expert Susan Pimento Co-Authors Newly Released EY Report on the Future of Retirement in Canada

Everything Old Is New Again. Even Layaway.