Talk:Registered retirement savings plan/Archives/2013

NPoV/advertising?
I'm not an accountant, but the "five effects" of the RRSP seems to paint it in an unnecessarily negative light. For bullet #1, the intended benefit of deferring the tax is that most people will have lower incomes after they retire than when they're contributing to their plans, so they'll pay tax at a lower rate. If your income is already so low that you expect to be making more when you retire than you do now, then the rule of thumb is to contribute to your TFSA and other investments instead. This isn't a flaw of the RRSP so much as knowing when to use the right tool for the job. Bullet #4 is interesting trivia, but not useful unless we can get an idea of how the reduction in government benefits compares to the benefit of compounding interest on the pre-tax money and the overall reduction in taxes. I'm also unsure whether wealth/net income is taken into account when calculating some of these government benefits. (If it is, avoiding RRSPs in favor of alternate investments to avoid the reductions may be a bit pointless.) If this aspect is important enough to be listed as one of the main effects of the RRSP I think it's important enough to explain exactly how that is.

I noticed that these changes were all made by 174.6.196.178, who also removed a lot of technical information and examples about how the RRSP works. The previous article seemed relatively neutral and in my opinion better explained the purpose of the RRSP. This edit happened quite some time ago so I'm not really sure whether this is a "silent consensus" or just a matter of nobody really noticing or being bothered by the changes until now.

The edit summary stated that there were "lots of sources quoted at the bottom", but there was only one reference, an article from retailinvestor.org (the current one). I do not believe that retailinvestor.org is a reliable source. As far as I can tell, the creator(s) of retailinvestor.org are completely anonymous, and the site itself has not been referenced in any reliable third-party publications. Furthermore, of the 32 edits made by 174.6.196.178, at least 22 of them insert or update a link to retailinvestor.org or its predecessor site (members.shaw.ca/retailinvestor). I believe this IP is personally associated with retailinvestor.org and is using Wikipedia to spread their personal opinion and advertise their website. I'm not knowledgeable enough to feel comfortable making major edits myself, and it seems far too late for a rollback. Am I right that this is a problem? If so, how should we fix it? --173.180.125.92 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You make some excellent points. I don't think we can take the tacit acceptance of these edits as reflecting consensus. Like you, I also think the IP editor is associated with the retailinvestor.org site. However, we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The analysis on retailinvestor.org is sound; I went over it carefully. However, like the edits here, it is tainted with a very clear PoV.
 * I think the best way to fix this is to restore the deleted sources, and move the five points from the lede to a new section titled, "Criticism of RRSP" or suchlike. While the blog itself isn't the most reliable source, it echoes an accurate view of RRSP I've heard from a few other analysts, although it is certainly far from the common view. Since you've already done most of the relevant work, it would make the most sense if you did these edits yourself. Please try to retain all the existing content in the article. It's always easy to trim it down later if we choose to do so. Owen&times; &#9742;  15:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO the originator of this section is looking for financial advice for his own decision ... and that should not be the objective of the page. It should present the facts only, and leave their application to the individual.
 * The "five effects" are statements of mathematical fact and cannot be considered as 'negative' or 'POV'. They are what they are.   Any dismissal of an effect as 'trivial' and not worth mentioning would be POV.  'Rules of thumb' should only be presented if they can be proven with math to work under all situations.
 * The problem with statements of 'purpose' is that most reflect the advice industry's sales pitch. They are not in fact correct because the five effects do not do accomplish what they claim is 'supposed to happen' . Same with considering the government's 'intent'.
 * Before dismissing the math as 'tainted' or simply a 'critism' you should provide your own math proof for calculating the 'effects' you think the RRSP accomplishes. 174.6.196.178 (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Dec 8 2013
@GroundZero: It is clear that you have not worked through the referenced link because your positions are all addressed and shown to be wrong on the Nitty Gritty page http://www.retailinvestor.org/RRSPmodel.html. Please spend some time there with an open mind. Before changing this section can you please provide your own math proof of the deconstruction of benefits to counter the existing proof at http://www.retailinvestor.org/Challenge.xls (as per the bottom of this Talk page). You should be able to deconstruct the net benefits to include (judging from what you want claimed here) line items for a) the contribution being a benefit and b)the income sheltering being only deferred till withdrawal, not absolute as calculated, without including a line for c)the cost of delaying the tax deduction.

Effect 1) You are confusing the mechanics with the net benefit/effects. The mechanics you want for this section are fully described in the following section on the mechanics of the contribution. There is a need to include the warning that the contribution is NOT a benefit because so very, very many people claim it is.

Effect 2) Income earned in the plan is not taxed ever. This is addressed in painstaking detail on the Nitty Gritty page. The math proof is on the deconstruction spreadsheet.  The simply understood proof comes from the univerally accepted understanding the the benefit of the RRSP and TFSA are exactly equal, as long as the cont/wdraw tax rate does not change.  If income is permanently sheltered in the TFSA, then it must also be in the RRSP.  The taxes paid on withdrawal are an allocation of principal, not a tax on profits.

Effect 3) I changed the math equation for the bonus/penalty of the change in tax rates to reflect the more easily understood one. Instead of making it relative to the equivalent TFSA benefit, I make it equal the deconstruction math - the absolute benefit.  All discussed on the Nitty Gritty page.

Effect 5) When you look at the deconstruction you will see that there is an absolute loss of benefits due to the delay in claiming the tax deduction. It is not an opportunity cost.  This is because the the equation for the second benefit listed implicitly assumes the tax savings was invested and growing inside the account from t=0.  24.85.94.77 (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * GroundZero, I'm afraid I have to agree with 24.85.94.77. Your edits changed the entire point of that section, rather than just add clarity as you claimed. The anon's claims are well supported by the math shown, while yours merely repeat common wisdom, which quite apparently is false in this case. Let us straighten this issue here on the talk page rather than continue a pointless edit war. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a minute here. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. It requires references to reliable sources. The reference provided above, retailinvestor.org, is a website posted by someone or some people who do not identify themselves. He/she/they take a contrarian view. Here is some statements from the website:
 * "For all people wedded to a wrong understanding, you are challenged to develop your own math to explain the RRSP benefit in the way YOU think is correct. If you think you are correct, prove it. All the industry players have been challenged to disprove this spreadsheet and provide their own math. This list includes the big banks, the Investor Education Fund, the Get Smart About Money website, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, Investopedia, the Competition Bureau of Canada, the issuers of the CFP designation, the CAs, the Canadian Bankers Association. None have attempted the challenge. They simply stonewall."
 * "Even the largest banks' education sites are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Witness this typical misunderstanding from the people trying to sell you advice.... Even the public accountants refuse to change their advice and continue the same old garbage.... Even the Consumer Affairs Department of the Government purposefully lie to you."

I love the typing all-in-caps and repetition of the accusation. Do you ever see that on reliable sources?

Is Wikipedia a place to challenge the CAs, Candian Banking Association, the Government of Canada, etc., on RRSPs?

No. As Fringe theories says: "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

Yes, Wikipedia is going to repeat the common wisdom that is supported by a wide range of credible organizations, rather than a fringe theory supported by an unattributed website that appears to have been put up by some guy or woman in his or her spare time. I have no doubt that the person or people behind retailinvestor.org are very sincere -- a lot of work has gone into the site -- but it does not meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability.

Anything referenced to retailinvestor.org must be removed as it is in conflict with Wikipedia policy. Ground Zero | t 23:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That retailinvestor analysis is heavily slanted. The fact of the matter is that RRSP's work well for those people whose income will fall off when they retire (eg, Canadians working without a pension plan or who are on Defined Contribution plans) and they don't work all that well for others (eg, people working with Defined Benefit plans or who have amassed signficant assets).  The point is this:  every case is different and should be analyzed in isolation.  I would agree with Ground Zero's position on the reliability of retailinvestor.com - it's not a reliable source.  PK  T (alk)  01:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, retailinvestor.org is a fringe site, and its author does come across as a crackpot. This would discredit it as a source if the site provided facts or opinions. But retailinvestor provides neither; all it does is show a straightforward synthesis of the basic facts we all agree on - nothing beyond high school arithmetic. And the eccentric author shows his entire work, so no leap of faith is needed, either.


 * If all major sources claimed that √2 is a rational number, while one highly slanted blog by an anonymous crackpot showed a simple and elegant proof that it was not, would we still be obliged to repeat the common wisdom, and ignore the rigorous math? I'm as much of a process wonk as the next admin, but I believe an easy-to-follow, straightforward synthesis showing most resources to be wrong is knowledge too valuable to discard simply based on the poor credentials of its author.


 * However, rather than barricade in our respective positions on this, I suggest the following compromise: move the entire portion sourced from retailinvestor.org to a separate section titled "Criticisms" or "Other views", and leave only the amply-sourced common wisdom in the lede. This way, the reader will be free to pick between the popular view, supported by a preponderance of respectable sources with gilded credentials, and the analysis of one eccentric, supported by math. Owen&times; &#9742;  09:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "If all major sources claimed that √2 is a rational number...." Well, none do. This is not a valid comparison. I would agree to citing the retailinvestor.org view if "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner" as WP:FRINGE specifies. Are there any such references available? Ground Zero | t 09:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Well, none do. This is not a valid comparison." - It's not a comparison, it's an analogy, and you have conveniently avoided the question I posed. If all reliable sources say one thing, while a simple calculation shows the opposite to be true, will you blindly follow WP:RS and WP:FRINGE? I'm not an advocate of WP:IAR, but can you stop tossing policies at us and try instead to apply some common sense?  We are humans trying to put together a useful compendium of knowledge, not automatons tasked with following prescribed routines. When the mainstream sources can be shown to be inaccurate, must we still blindly cling to them?  I think my proposal above was more than reasonable. Owen&times;  &#9742;  10:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to accept as credible someone who says the banks' websites are "WRONG, WRONG, WRONG" and the government "is lying to you". I haven't worked through the math because this guy is a crackpot and a fringe theorist. Wikipedia is not here to be a platform for fringe theories. Wikipedia policies have been developed by the Wikipedia community to protect the integrity of this encyclopedia.If you disagree with those policies, you can propose changes to them. Mr. or Ms. Retailinvestor.org has their own website to promote their views. They do not need Wikipedia as a platform to do so. If their views get enough attention to be reported by a reliable source, then by all means, they should be reflected here. But if they aren't, then common sense - and Wikipedia policy - tells us that we should not include them in an encyclopedia article. And by the way, the arguments about "tossing policies at us" and "blindly following" policies are the standard arguments put forward by those who find themselves on the wrong side of the policies. Understanding IAR say "If consensus favors a given approach, that approach will usually be taken". If you can get consensus to ignore the rules, then the policies don't apply. But you do not have consensus here.


 * With regard your statement that "a simple calculation shows the opposite to be true", can you provide support for that, aside from the apparently original research at an unattributed website? Ground Zero | t 12:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't have to accept retailinvestor.org as credible; in fact, you shouldn't. You should independently check the math yourself, and then--if you've done the arithmetic correctly--arrive at the same conclusion. As I said, the fact that the site was written by a crackpot does not eliminate its veracity.
 * Wikipedia doesn't need to be a platform to promote any views. However, once we've verified that a certain claim is a simple synthesis of an agreed set of facts, what justification do we have to exclude it from the article? There is no question about retailinvestor failing WP:RS. I have no problem with our policies - I helped form quite a few of them myself. But unlike you, I believe the disputed comments still fall under WP:CALC, and do not require independent sourcing at all. The fact that you didn't bother reviewing the content of that site just because of its poor presentation says more about you than it does about the site. Owen&times;  &#9742;  14:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So sad. The admission "I haven't worked through the math" pretty much sums the situation up. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant to Ground Zero.  But we are not talking rock science here, that only the 'experts' (not Wiki authors) would be able to evaluate.  (Thus the necessity for policy arbitration).  'Normal' people can understand both the theory and math proofs provided ... if read.  Question for Ground Zero ..... "If you did read the link with an open mind, and found that you agreed with its understanding and math ..... would you be arguing here as above? (effectively advising readers to the opposite actions from what you now believe correct)?"24.85.94.77 (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If I checked the math myself, then we would have a proof written up on an unattributed website confirmed by an unregistered user, and two editors who use pseudonyms - OwenX and Ground Zero. That's not what an encyclopedia is built on. Let's be clear that Retailinvestor.org is arguing that the common wisdom is wrong and it can be proven by simple math. If I agreed with it, I still would not be arguing that Wikipedia should make an exception here just because I think it is right. I don't believe that WP:CALC allows us to contradict reliable sources. Look, I am all in favour of original research - without it, the world wouldn't get anywhere. It just does not belong in Wikipedia, and that's why I am not taking the time to work through the math. If this revolutionary approach is picked up by a reliable source, then I would agree with including it here as an alternative approach. An encyclopedia is not the place for this debate - take it to financial planning forums -- there are lots of them. Ground Zero | t 03:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Which is more important, the reader or the rules? GroundZero wants to uphold rules, even at the cost of mis-informing readers and causing them to make bad financial decisions.  Is that ethically OK? Does refusing to read refuting evidence provide a moral excuse?  24.85.94.77 (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, 24.85.94.77, we are here to make editorial decisions, not moral or ethical ones. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Who says there is mathematical proof? Who says we are mis-informing readers? So far all we have is an unattributed website, an unregistered Wikipedia editor, and a registered Wikipedia editor. Even if we had two or five or seven Wikipedia editors, this would still not be sufficient authority to challenge the "common wisdom" of the Canadian financial planning industry, the Government of Canada, Canada's banks and the Chartered Accounting profession. Wikipedia requires better sources - not just because it is a rule, but because requiring reliable sources is what stops Wikipedia from just being another platform for people with contrarian views doing original research. If retailinvestor.org's ideas were taken up by, for example, MoneySense magazine, or Eric Reguly's column in the Globe and Mail, then there would be justification for including those ideas here.
 * I think this discussion has run its course. I propose to restore the version that I had written, and include retailinvestor.org in the External Links section as an "alternative view". Per WP:FRINGE, I do not think there is justification for presenting its views in the text of the article. Ground Zero | t 11:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; go ahead. Owen&times; &#9742;  12:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Owen. It's done. Ground Zero | t 12:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Dec 2013, was the mainstream idea ever proved?
The media, industry and advisors claim a variety of benefits from RRSPs. The most common include
 * The tax reduction on contribution is a benefit.
 * The tax reduction on contribution is not a benefit in itself, but you get the benefit of the profits it earns.
 * The profits while in the account are not taxed until withdrawn at which time it is taxed at full rates. Therefore ...
 * The benefit from income sheltering is a deferral, not absolute, and
 * There is a cost to RRSPs of eventually taxing profits at full rates that would have been taxed at preferential rates in a taxable account.
 * There is a benefit if withdrawals in retirement are taxed at lower rates than contributions were taxed.
 * There is agreement with (4) in the list above regarding the effects on benefits.

I would like a reference that actually proves those points mathematically. The benefits/costs must explain the net effect of the RRSP after a completed round-trip into and out of the account. In other words, individual steps in the process are not proof of the net effect. Was what is now commonly heard ever actually proved? Can anyone give us a reference?24.85.94.77 (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 24.85.94.77, your intentions are good, but on Wikipedia, claims don't have to be mathematically proven. They just have to be properly sourced. An article regarding Game Theory I was involved in editing contained a falsehood for several months, because one editor refused to accept the fact that the clueless USA Today journalist he was referencing didn't understand the subject matter enough to cover it correctly. Eventually we reached a consensus and the article was corrected, but that's the pitfall of relying on verifiable sources versus peer-reviewed proofs.
 * Whether true or not, the common wisdom will stay in the article as long as it is the mainstream view - even after it is successfully refuted by mathematical proof. That is how this works. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So the answer is "No - there is no backup proof".24.85.94.77 (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The Dec 13 edit supposedly reflecting 'the received wisdom' should do that. The calculation of the benefit/cost of a change in cont/wdraw tax rates comes from the Retail Investor.  No other sites calculate net benefits - that was the whole point of this dispute.  Also the cost ((whether you think actual or opportunity) from delaying the contribution tax reduction is also not part of the received wisdom.  In fact most mentions of it fail to acknowledge any cost (only the benefit from the presumed higher tax rate at that later date).  It also is a product of the Retail investor. Please see following a list of sites that include the non-partizen and industry.  These are the received wisdom.

CRA abstains from anything to do with net benefits http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/rrsp-reer/rrsps-eng.html Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/university/rrsp/rrsp1.asp GetSmarterAboutMoney http://www.getsmarteraboutmoney.ca/en/managing-your-money/investing/rrsps-for-retirement/Pages/Five-reasons-to-open-an-RRSP.aspx#.UqsqieIlit9 and http://www.getsmarteraboutmoney.ca/en/managing-your-money/investing/rrsps-for-retirement/Pages/How-RRSPs-work.aspx#.UqsqieIlit9 Financial Consumer Agency of Canada http://www.fcac-acfc.gc.ca/Eng/forConsumers/lifeEvents/planningRetirement/Pages/Register-Rgimeenr.aspx SunLife http://www.sunlife.ca/Canada/sunlifeCA/Investments/Building+your+savings/RRSPs?vgnLocale=en_CA TD http://www.tdcanadatrust.com/products-services/investing/rsps/rsp-index.jsp RBC http://www.rbcds.com/rsp-investing-benefits.html 24.85.94.77 (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not about "received wisdom", but about what is verifiable from reliable sources and not original research. Retailinvestor.org is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as a reference for an article. It is debatable whether it should even be included in external links as it is essentially a blog, but I'm willing to leave it in as a compromise. User:24 is going to have to accept Wikipedia policy, and Wikipedia does not have to accept his/her edits. There is lots of room on the internet elsewhere for his/her views and research. Ground Zero | t 22:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * None of the references I listed above, mentions any measurement of benefits from a change in tax rates. I am glad you agree with me. None of the references listed mentions any cost from a delay in claiming the tax reduction.  Witness the Getting Smart link that mentions the option to delay the claim without any mention of costs. That issue comes from the RI and is not part of 'received wisdom' or 'reliable sources' or whatever you want to call it. 24.85.94.77 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Ground Zero. IMO no one who admits not knowing the material, and refuses to learn, should presume to edit a Wki. Without knowledge of the material you cannot understand the ramifications of your edits to the readers, or evaluate their validity. You evidently never even had my common-sense reaction to the official claims (see ReWrite section below). But then, the references you came up with for the 'official' benefits show me that you probably did not even know 'what' the official version was, or where to find it. You were posting your own personal ideas and wrongly claiming they were the 'official' version - without backup. And deleting other's ideas that did provide proofs.

Also no one should use Wiki editing to play out a personal grudge. Your comments show a strong dislike for the Retail Investor's author personally. Take your dispute elsewhere.

What harm is done by one link? None. Readers are free to go -- or not. No downside, only upside potential. Lets have some common sense. I support the idea from waaaay above .... Until the 'official' statements of benefits (advertising) can be supported with some math, readers should be warned of disagreements, and allowed to consider other opinions. 207.102.255.247 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

ReWrite Dec 2013
I re-wrote and rearranged a lot of this material that I thought was poorly expressed. I did not add much detail because readers with a specific situation should really read the detail on the government site.
 * added definition of 'deferred-tax account'.
 * deleted reference to Aussie plans that are not the same because their income is taxed.
 * added reference to what happens on death as asked above.
 * simplified listing of types of accounts which hardly need their own sections.
 * moved taxation issue to individual contribution/withdrawal sections.
 * corrected the calculation of what able to contribute vs what able to deduct.
 * updated contribution limits - was the reason I arrived at this site.
 * created new section for definition of BENEFITS that distinguish from procedures in the top spection.  Got rid of references that are no more 'official' than the disputed site above. Changed list of benefits to what is actually stated on the most official sites. GetSmarterAboutMoney http://www.getsmarteraboutmoney.ca/en/managing-your-money/investing/rrsps-for-retirement/Pages/Five-reasons-to-open-an-RRSP.aspx#.UqsqieIlit9 and http://www.getsmarteraboutmoney.ca/en/managing-your-money/investing/rrsps-for-retirement/Pages/How-RRSPs-work.aspx#.UqsqieIlit9 Financial Consumer Agency of Canada http://www.fcac-acfc.gc.ca/Eng/forConsumers/lifeEvents/planningRetirement/Pages/Register-Rgimeenr.aspx

"RRSPs have four benefits although these are disputed by an unofficial calculation.
 * 1) Contributions are tax deductible and reduce taxes.
 * 2) Income earned inside the plan is not taxed while within the plan.
 * 3) Taxes are deferred until withdrawal, on both the income earned and the original contribution, at which time they are fully taxed.
 * 4) The contributor's marginal tax rate when withdrawing funds may be lower than the tax rate the contributor paid when making the original contribution."

I included the reference line " .... although these are disputed by an unofficial calculation." because without the qualification this section should not exist at all. I never/don't actually believed those claims. I always thought they were just 'advertising'. To me it was just common sense that they are not correct.


 * Q: How can the original tax refund be a benefit, and its deferral also be a benefit?  One or the other, maybe.  But not both. Just common sense.
 * Q: If profits are taxed on withdrawal, how come everyone agrees that the TFSA and RRSP's benefits are equal (when tax rates don't change)?  Everyone agrees that the TFSA shelters profits.
 * Q: How come all mentions to a tax rate change talk about a reduction, but never an increase?  It is common sense that the rates can rise as well.

The comments in the three sections above show that people actually believe the advertising, and even get very upset when told it is not true, even to the point of concluding for no other reason that the bad news must be wrong. So sad. 207.102.255.247 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting this mess for the following reasons:


 * 1) your edits are contentious -- you should get consensus here on the talk page before making any edits,
 * 2) the formatting is wrong -- don't expect others to clean up after you, and
 * 3) retailinvestor.org is just some blog. It isn't a reliable source, so it does not belong in the text of the article, even as an "unofficial calculation", whatever the heck that means. As far as things being "common sense", that comes across as just another way of saying "I can't find a reliable source" or "original research". Some of your changes may be valid, but you must get consensus on the talk page before making them. Ground Zero | t 19:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding your questions:
 * Q1: the article does not say this. The article says that the taxes on the income contributed are deferred. A second benefit is the deferral of the income earned within the plan.
 * Q2: Your question is not clear. The "four effects" section is not a comparison of RRSPs and TFSAs, but a comparison of RRSPs to taxable investments.
 * Q3: The article reads "The contributor's marginal tax rate when withdrawing funds may be higher (or lower) than the tax rate the contributor paid when making the original contribution." Typically, people withdraw from RRSPs/RRIFs after they retire, when their income is lower, so tax rates are lower even if there have been no changes to the statutory rates. Ground Zero | t 20:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I am reinstating stuff that I agree with. I don't believe you need permission to make changes that were mostly cleanup. 24.85.94.77 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks 207.102.255.247 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I will let any reader compare the list of benefits in my post, to those listed on the official sites ... to evaluate GroundZero's response. 207.102.255.247 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)