HOMELESSNESS IN CANADA BIGGER PROBLEM FOR SINGLES AND POOR SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES

Posted on May 23, 2016 by ffswpadmin

HOMELESSNESS IN CANADA BIGGER PROBLEM FOR SINGLES AND POOR SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES

These thoughts are purely the blunt, no nonsense personal opinions of the author and are not intended to provide personal or financial advice.

(The author of this blog applauds Ron Kneebone and Margarita Wilkins for their study on homelessness for single employables in this country. Words in italics are the words of the author of this blog. Caveat: While we don’t agree with everything that comes out of Schools of Public Policy, we agree with the premise of this study, that is, single employables (singles and single parents) are having a very difficult time surviving on low wages and lack of affordable housing.)

The following excerpts are taken from “Shrinking the need for homeless shelter spaces” (policthat is, yschool.ucalgary.ca) by Ron Kneebone and Margarita Wilkins from the University of Calgary School of Public Policy and the opinion letter “The secrets of reducing homelessness” (calgaryherald) by Ron Kneebone also refers to this study.

‘In 2009, an estimated 147,000 people, or about one in 230 Canadians, stayed in an emergency homeless shelter.

….The chronically homeless, whether for long periods or with repeated episodes, are a minority (one-third due to personal challenges (sic such as alcoholism and drug addiction) not immediately associated with the economic conditions of the city in which they live) of those experiencing homelessness. An implication is that the majority of emergency shelter beds are provided to meet the needs of people who experience homelessness for short and infrequent periods and do so as a result of poverty. The remaining two-thirds of shelter beds are filled by people who make relatively infrequent use of shelters and are more likely forced into shelters by economic conditions….

A role is also possibly played by discrimination in the housing market; discrimination that leaves some people with no option but to use a shelter and for social agencies to provide for them.

But our main focus was on housing affordability. We found that cities where the income support provided by the provincial social assistance system to a single person was small relative to rent — that is, in cities where housing was expensive for a very poor person — social agencies found it necessary to provide more emergency shelter beds.

The policy implications of this result are clear; increase the affordability of housing to very poor people and the need for emergency shelter spaces will fall. There are a number of ways of accomplishing this goal and it would likely be wise to act on all of these policy fronts…

We show that providing a relatively small income increase — just $1,500 per year — to single people on social assistance would enable the closing of about 20 per cent of emergency shelter beds.

Attacking housing affordability from the other side, by reducing housing costs, would also be effective. There are many options available here, from increased rent supplements to tax and regulatory changes that enable housing to be built that is affordable to those with low incomes….

Policy-makers need not focus too narrowly on just a few policy responses, and need not rely solely on publicly funded construction of low-income housing. Many, more subtle, adjustments to policy levers can have equally important influences on the housing market and hence homelessness….

…We continue to be perplexed why governments fail to index for inflation the income support provided to those in poverty….

…two broad sets of policy responses are possible, those aimed at treating causes of homelessness closely tied to individual circumstances and those aimed at treating causes of homelessness related to housing market conditions….

…The theoretical connection between homelessness and housing market conditions is straightforward: even if one can pay for the minimum quality of housing available in a city, if there is little income left over for other of life’s necessities (food, clothing, etc.) one might rationally choose to forgo conventional housing and try one’s luck doubling up with relatives or friends, or temporarily using a city’s shelter system. Thus, to the extent that minimum-quality housing is priced such that it would consume an extremely high proportion of one’s income, a person may become homeless….

….Rapid population growth and strong labour markets (sic such as occurred in cities like Vancouver, Toronto, and Calgary) influence prices by increasing the demand for housing. For those unable to benefit from strong economic growth, housing costs can quickly rise out of reach. Changes in income distribution may also play a role as the types of housing available in a city with income skewed toward the high end will differ from housing options available in a city with income skewed in the other direction.

Public policy choices can also be expected to influence the affordability of housing. Interest rates and tax policies influence the housing market by affecting new construction costs, the costs of rehabilitating old buildings, and the costs of maintenance and building abandonment….

…Report by TD Economics. (Affordable Housing in Canada): Using data from 2002, the report provides information that allows one to identify what percentage of the total cost of building a modest rental apartment is due to local infrastructure charges, application fees and building permits. These local charges ranged from a low of 1.7 per cent of total cost in Montreal to a high of 11 per cent in Ottawa. In a study using U.S. data, Stephen Malpezzi and Richard Green show that moving from a relatively unregulated to a heavily regulated metropolitan area increases rents among the lowest-income renters by one-fifth and increases home values for the lowest quality single family homes by more than three-fifths. The largest price effects of such regulations occur at the bottom of the distribution in units that are disproportionately occupied by low- and moderate-income households….

…The influence seems to be large; providing an additional 100 rent-assisted units has been shown to reduce by four the number of people experiencing homelessness (from How to House the Homeless)….’

When conducting the study, Kneebone and Wilkins used the following variables:

‘….Our dependent variable is the number of emergency shelter beds (Beds) provided in each city as a fraction of that city’s total adult population (Pop). Our key policy-sensitive determinant of that dependent variable is a measure of housing affordability, the ratio of a relevant income measure to a relevant measure of housing cost….

…Our measure of income is the amount of social assistance income provided to a person defined in provincial social assistance programs as a single employable (Income). A person classified in this way is single and without an impediment to employment that is recognized by the provincial social assistance program. Our measure of housing cost is based on the average amount paid on a one-bedroom rental unit (Rent).

We use as our measure of income the aforementioned amount of social assistance paid to a single employable for three reasons. First, the vast majority of homeless shelter users are single. Second, people most likely to experience homelessness are mainly, as emphasized by Burt et al., the “poorest of the poor.” At an average annual income of about $7,500 (our data are for 2011 and vary by province), social assistance is the income of last resort for a single person deemed healthy enough to find employment. Finally, our focus is on identifying public policies that might influence the perceived need to provide emergency shelter beds. One possibly important policy lever is government-provided income support to the income-demographic group most likely to use emergency shelters….

…The estimated coefficient on our measure of housing affordability indicates that a one per cent increase in the ratio of social assistance income to rent is associated with a 1.15 per cent reduction in the ratio of shelter beds to adult population. An implication of this sensitivity is that increasing the annual amount of social assistance provided to a person identified as a single employable by $1,500 per year would, by increasing the ratio of income to rent, enable social agencies to close a total of 2,599 shelter beds across Canada, a reduction of 18 per cent….

An alternative policy – or perhaps one to be introduced in conjunction with the increase in income – would be to increase the size of the rent subsidy available to those with low Income. Our results suggest that increasing rent subsidies by $100 per month would be sufficient to enable providers to close 2,975 shelter beds across Canada. Our two policy options therefore have similar effects.

DISCUSSION Our calculations suggest the potential efficacy of an approach that favours what might be broadly described as a market solution to shrinking the need for emergency shelter beds. This is particularly so with respect to our suggestion to provide the very poor with a higher level of income support and allow them to purchase goods and services through the market.….What is important is that the income support enables the very poor the opportunity to be able to afford housing not otherwise available to them….Providing rent subsidies is another approach we have shown can be effective at shrinking the need for emergency shelter beds. That approach is somewhat more prescriptive – the very poor must use the support on housing – but is similar in the sense that rent subsidy effectively increases the income available to the very poor to purchase more of life’s necessities. If the declining stock of affordable housing is in part the result of rising income inequality and poverty, then providing the poor with income support in these ways is a direct way of addressing the cause of the affordable housing crisis.

This non-exhaustive list of possible influences on the low-end housing market emanating from public policy choices suggests that all levels of government have a role to play in addressing homelessness and that they have a wide variety of policy levers to adjust. Policy-makers need not, therefore, focus too narrowly on just a few policy responses. Policy responses that have more subtle and less direct influences on the housing market than, say, the publicly funded construction of low-income housing, may have far more pervasive influences on the housing market and hence homelessness. What’s more, more subtle policy responses may prove to be less costly to the public treasury and may avoid the potential for direct government provision or subsidization of housing units to result in reductions in the unsubsidized housing stock….It is useful to emphasize that our suggestion to increase social assistance income is a one time expenditure made necessary by the failure of policy-makers to properly adjust those payments to inflation. For reasons that are unclear to us, provincial governments do not index social assistance payments to the cost of living in the same way they index income tax brackets relevant to better-off Canadians or pensions provided to seniors adjusted by the federal government. Instead, provincial governments periodically increase social assistance payments in a haphazard effort to enable the very poor to keep up with rising costs….Indexing social assistance payments to the costs of the key drivers of the welfare of the very poor – housing and food costs – would go a long way toward enabling them to stay housed and escape the necessity of having to sometimes rely on homeless shelters.

CONCLUSION Homelessness is an exceptionally complex social problem. It has root causes in the personal traits of those most likely at risk of a spell of homelessness and the structural factors that influence the housing options available to the poorest of the poor. The unintended consequences of public policies also play a role. Our focus in this paper has been on those persons who experience homelessness as a result of what we have described as structural factors, the state of housing and labour markets that destine the very poor to be unable to afford even minimum-quality housing.

Contrary to popular belief, most people who become homeless will remain so for a few days or weeks but not become homeless again. The chronically homeless (sic due to drug abuse, alcoholism, etc.) whether for long periods or with repeated episodes, are a minority of those experiencing homelessness. An implication is that the majority of emergency shelter beds are provided to meet the needs of people who experience homelessness for short and infrequent periods and do so as a result of poverty. Our results, and similar results from research using U.S. data, suggest that relatively modest public policies can make significant differences in the perceived need to provide shelter beds. Directing support toward those for whom housing costs consume a very large share of their low incomes can have a significant impact on the number of people experiencing homelessness and thus on the need for emergency shelter beds.

….Data on the total adult population aged 15 years and over, the total aboriginal population aged 15 years and over, and the number of recent international migrants to a city are from the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) available on the Statistics Canada website at http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm .

A recent international migrant is a person who lived outside of Canada one year prior to the census reference data of May 10, 2011.’ (end of Kneebone/Wilkins info.)

From “Encyclopedia of Canadian Social Work” (books.google.ca)

‘…..low rates in Newfoundland reflect severe cuts in 1996 to benefit levels for single employable persons and the low rates in Alberta reflect the steady decline in benefit levels under the conservative provincial government…. the current reality of less generous social assistance provision in Canada is reflective of the global ascendance of neo-conservative philosophies and the accompanying pressures of neo-liberal economic policies. Ideologies emphasizing individual blames, rather than collective responsibility, foster more restrictive social programs. Restrictions to Canadian social assistance programs began in 1990 with a federal cap to limit expenditures under the Canada Assistance Plan, closely followed by provincial/territorial cutbacks through tighter eligibility criteria, lower benefit levels, and more stringent conditions.’

An example of the deterioration of social policies in Alberta was the introduction of 2001 Alberta flat tax rate of 10%. While most of upper income level persons benefited from the 10% flat rate, the tax rate for bottom level income earners went from 8% to 10%.

It appears that the most common recipients in need of social welfare are single employable and single parents, yet the most emphasis today by governments and politicians appears to be on children of all family types when majority of focus should be placed on single parents.

Too often, current social assistance programs fail to distinguish a single employable family unit from a married or coupled persons without children family unit. There is no recognition that it costs a single employable family unit seventy per cent to live of what it costs married or coupled persons without children family unit. When reviewing the literature on social programs many only look at the family units of singles, single parents with children, singles with a disability and married or coupled parents with children in their analysis. To achieve financial fairness for singles, single person family units finances in relation to married/coupled persons without children family units also needs to be analyzed.

The single employable adult population that is often financially compromised includes aboriginals and recent immigrants. Immigrant singles will often be more financially compromised than married or coupled immigrants with or without children family units. An example is immigrant singles without family supports in this country working multiple jobs in order to send money home to their families (i.e. to buy necessary medications). Some of these singles as result of over work unintentionally will suffer illnesses such as strokes from undiagnosed high blood pressure or undiagnosed diabetes or even death because they have not sought medical attention throughout their intensive work schedules involving multiple jobs.

How many different ways can it be said that Canadian singles are feeling financial despair in this country, one of the major factors being housing?

Yet another example is the financial profile of Jessica, an age 54 Ontarian single with three grown children in ‘Home Ownership Possible But Tight’ (buying-a-home). She would like to buy a home in the $150,000 range which is pretty much impossible except in small town Ontario. This is the same profile as several other presented in this blog (real-financial-lives-of-singles) Jessica has a take income of $3,315 per month or almost $40,000 per year. Her rental income is $877 per month. She has a company defined contribution plan. The financial planner estimates that on retirement she will have approximately $2,300 monthly income for expenses. Without home ownership, how does a senior single live on $2,300 per month with $900 per month rent? If singles are unable to support themselves with a $60,000 – $70,000 pre-tax income (more than $15 per hour minimum wage), how are those at lower levels supposed to afford housing, (rental or home ownership)?

Single employables (singles and single parents) deserve the same financial dignity and respect as married/coupled persons with and without children. Singles and single parents (white, aboriginal and of immigrant status) deserve to be included in financial formulas at the same level as married or coupled persons with and without children.

This blog is of a general nature about financial discrimination of individuals/singles. It is not intended to provide personal or financial advice.

OPINION LETTER ‘LIES AND IGNORANCE’ IN RESPONSE TO ‘NEWSPAPER PROMOTES THE LIE’ ON LGBTQ

Posted on May 18, 2016 by ffswpadmin

OPINION LETTER ‘LIES AND IGNORANCE’ IN RESPONSE TO OPINION LETTER ‘NEWSPAPER PROMOTES THE LIE’ ON LGBTQ

These thoughts are purely the blunt, no nonsense personal opinions of the author and are not intended to provide personal or financial advice.

(This opinion letter in response to a previous opinion letter was published in local newspaper on May 12, 2016 under title ‘Lies and Ignorance’. The premise of the first opinion letter was that there is no science that proves homosexuality and God views homosexuality as a sin. Since there is a limit to words that can be published, additional comments have been added here in italics.)

Regarding local newspaper opinion letter, May 5, 2016 “Newspaper promotes the lie”, there are lies and there is ignorance.

During biblical times, there were no instruments such as CAT Scans and MRIs. In modern times use of these instruments has shown that lesbian brains are more like male heterosexual brains. Homosexual male brains are more like heterosexual female brains. The level of testosterone also has an impact on how sex of fetus will be determined during human fetal maturation.

There are many examples where sex determination goes awry, for example, Hermaphroditism where there are both male and female parts in one individual, fish being almost equal in female and male sex upstream in Lethbridge, but more female fish downstream, male fetuses being aborted in Sarnia, Ontario industrial area, and so on. In this beautiful province, Red Deer has had decidedly poor air quality over several years. Who knows what impact this has on fetal development? (“ What Science Knows About Homosexuality” is an excellent reference on this subject-including interesting piece of , information, every fetus starts out as female and then becomes male or remains female depending on level of testosterone during fetal maturation-added Sept. 15/16). Add link

The writer states: “I think God has an edge on over all of us”. Yes, He does, but He also requires us to use our critical thinking skills and smarts to come to correct instead of ignorant and erroneous statements.

The writer states his views are supported by science, yet he does not give one example from science. He does correctly state that the LGBT community has affected society. Absolutely it has. One example is financial. The female pairing of the LGBT community may financially mean female paired couples will earn less than male paired couples because women are still consistently paid less than men for equal jobs. This may result in more poverty for female paired couples and families. This is possibly exacerbated by God-fearing, right winged non-union business persons who seem to have no problem with paying women less for equal work. ‘Financial fairness for singles’ may also be impacted as married and coupled persons continually get more financial benefits regardless of sexual orientation than singles, heterosexual or LGBTQ.

An indelible statement made by a LGBTQ person is reproduced here. “Why would anyone choose to be gay? To have to live your life with prejudice, hatred and discriminatory practices is not how anyone would choose to live”. In the eyes of God, everyone is equal regardless of sexual orientation.

By the way, this article is written by a God-fearing heterosexual.

(Additional comment: When the religious community makes statement that God says homosexuality is a sin, they forget to mention that adultery is mentioned with same equality as homosexuality as a sin. In fact, adultery is one of the Ten Commandments – Thou shalt not commit adultery. When homosexuality is discussed, adultery needs to be discussed at the same level and same veracity as homosexuality.)

This blog is of a general nature about financial discrimination of individuals/singles. It is not intended to provide personal or financial advice.

FORT MCMURRAY FIRE DISASTER ASSISTANCE EQUALS POVERTY FOR SINGLES EQUALS FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION

Posted on May 14, 2016 by ffswpadmin

FORT MCMURRAY FIRE DISASTER ASSISTANCE EQUALS POVERTY FOR SINGLES

These thoughts are purely the blunt, no nonsense personal opinions of the author and are not intended to provide personal or financial advice.

Announcements from the province for Fort McMurray Fire Emergency Assistance state each adult will receive $1250 and each child $500. The Canadian Red Cross has now added $600 for each adult and $300 for each child. The total amount now equals $1850 per single adult, $3250 for single parent family with two children, $3700 for married or coupled family with no children and $5300 for married or coupled family with two children.

Singles have once again have been financially short changed. Common math sense, lowest common denominator critical thinking shows total for single person is equivalent to a poverty wage for a month. Amount for divorced or separated parent with children is also in question.

The $1850 amount for singles on month of expenses provides temporary assistance equivalent for $1300 one bedroom apartment rent or mortgage, $250 food, and very little for other necessities such as paying monthly bills (bills will not mysteriously disappear because of the fire). A single parent with two children $3450 amount provides assistance for two bedroom apartment rent or mortgage, $750 food, and some money left for gas and other necessities. Married or coupled family unit without children would get $3700 to spend on one bedroom apartment rent or mortgage, $500 for food and a lot of money left for gas and other necessities. A two parent family with two children would receive $5300. They could, for example, have $2000 mortgage or rent a two bedroom apartment, $1000 for food and $2300 left for gas and other necessities.

With present assistance amounts single parent with two children gets less financial assistance than married and coupled family unit without children. (Single parents, however will still get same provincial and federal child benefits as they did before the disaster?)

The poverty level for Canadian senior singles is approximately $20,000 or about $1700 per month (this is not even a living wage). Fort McMurray was not devoid of seniors. For these individuals who have worked many years supporting themselves and Canadian families, they deserve more than just subsistent assistance in time of tragedy. Same disaster assistance equal to financial poverty level for singles of any age is unacceptable.

It is interesting to note that the higher the family unit is on the married or coupled status scale, the more money they receive in assistance. If same financial formulation is used with every injection of money (there now has been two injections), the wider the financial disparity will between bottom family unit (singles) and upper family unit (two parent family with two children).

How many times can it be said that it costs more for singles to live? Studies show that it costs a family unit of a single person 70 per cent of what it costs a married or coupled family unit without children. Fair financial formulation requires analysis to be based on not just a person to person basis, but also what it costs each individual family unit to live.

A simple solution to clear up this financial human rights disaster and violation is to give financial assistance based on percentage of average cost of living per month for each family unit of single person, single parent with two children, married or coupled without children, and two parent family unit with two children. Many studies and Statistics Canada should provide enough information to make informed decisions in this regard.

An example of study on living wage income with both parents working in family of four shows that approximately $5500 per month is needed (“Toronto couples with kids must make $18.52 per hour each to get by, report finds” in The Star)The $5500 includes the federal child benefit which parents will still get and child care which many parents will not be using since they likely will not be working during the disaster period while they are away from Fort McMurray. The 2013 living wage for singles in Guelph and Wellington was deemed to be about $25,000 or about $2100 per month. The living wage has since been raised even further.

Year after year, singles of all ages provide untold financial benefits to their country and families through taxes, volunteer efforts, etc., but never financially get back what they put into financial coffers. One family unit does not deserve more financial benefits or to become a little richer than another in a disaster. In a just, humane society singles deserve same financial, psychological and social dignity and respect in emergency situations as married and coupled persons and families. Just where does government, society and family think singles should go if they are forced by this same government, society and family to not be able to support themselves?

This blog is of a general nature about financial discrimination of individuals/singles. It is not intended to provide personal or financial advice.

FORT MCMURRAY EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION FOR SINGLES AND SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES

Posted on May 11, 2016 by ffswpadmin

FORT MCMURRAY FIRE EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION FOR SINGLES AND SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES

These thoughts are purely the blunt, no nonsense personal opinions of the author and are not intended to provide personal or financial advice.

Announcements from the province for Fort McMurray Fire Emergency Assistance state each adult will receive $1250 and each child $500.

Singles and once again have been financially short changed. Common sense, lowest common denominator critical thinking shows $1250 is not enough. Amount for divorced or separated parent with children is also in question.

Amount for singles on month of expenses means they would get temporary assistance for $1300 one bedroom apartment rent, but have no money left for $250 food, gas or other necessities.. A divorced or separated parent with two children would get $2250. Parent could rent two bedroom apartment, have money for food, but nothing left for gas and other necessities. A married couple who at present time have no children would get $2500. They would possibly get temporary assistance for $1300 one bedroom apartment rent, $500 for food with some money left for gas and other necessities. A family with two children would receive $3500. They could rent a two bedroom apartment, have $1000 for food and also have money left for gas and other necessities.

If singles follow married persons mantra that they can always go live with someone, two bedroom apartment rent would put them on same financial level as married couple without children, but they would also face the additional psychological stress of not only the consequences of the fire, but also all the adjustments it takes to live with a new person in new surroundings, etc.

Single parent with two children gets less financial assistance than married and coupled family unit without children.

This disaster will put additional stress on what is already an unaffordable housing market. Singles will face greater negative consequences of this disaster in housing than families since landlords tend to rent to families before they rent to singles.

How many times can it be said that it costs more for singles to live than families? Year after year, singles of all ages provide untold financial benefits to their country and families through taxes, volunteer efforts, etc., but never financially get back what they put into financial coffers. Financial intelligence and fair financial formulation requires analysis to be based on not just a person to person basis, but also what it costs each individual family unit to live (single, single parent and two parent family units). One family unit does not deserve more financial benefits than another in a disaster. In a just, humane society singles and single parent families deserve same financial, psychological and social dignity and respect in emergency situations as married and coupled persons and families.

This blog is of a general nature about financial discrimination of individuals/singles. It is not intended to provide personal or financial advice.

STEREOTYPING OF SINGLES CONTINUES EVEN IN TRAGIC TIMES

Posted on May 8, 2016 by ffswpadmin

STEREOTYPING OF SINGLES CONTINUES EVEN IN TRAGIC TIMES

These thoughts are purely the blunt, no nonsense personal opinions of the author and are not intended to provide personal or financial advice.

It is interesting how tragic events like the Fort McMurray fires in Alberta, Canada can produce many emotions. The emotions can range from spectrum of profound gratefulness for being alive to debasement by stating this was karma and everything that happened was deserved (because of the nature of this city being responsible for the environmental impact of oil sands development causing climate change).

It is interesting how the media can soundly decry that this debasement is wrong, but at the same time produce stereotypical comments that seem to be directed towards singles, and in this case males.

The writer of article ‘Real Fort McMurray no myth or symbol, just a beloved home’ (pressreader) writes a very good article about how the debasing comments are so wrong and do nothing to promote a just humane society. However, the stereotypical comments (also myths, metaphors and symbols) about single males also are just as debasing:

“For some, it’s clear, Fort McMurray seems a national embarrassment – the rowdy cousin who arrives at your wedding driving an F-350, drinks too much, and does the bridesmaid under the table. The cousin you only invited in the expectation that he would bring a thumping big cheque to the party.

Rich, brash, over-sexed, unsophisticated and politically mortifying – that’s the Fort McMurray in the popular imagination of its detractors…… “

The writer does go on to state that many from all across Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada, do recognize the debt they owe to the city for employment and other benefits it has provided. Those who choose to negatively comment do so because:

“Perhaps they resent Fort McMurray’s noveau riches. To admit that you owe someone something is to acknowledge their dominance and your own lack of power. Perhaps it’s easier to mock those who live there as rednecks and rubes……Fort McMurray isn’t a myth or a metaphor. It isn’t a series of tired stereotypes and a convenient political symbol…..It’s a multicultural, vibrant city full of hard-working men and women….They love the challenge and the excitement – the camaraderie of a young community, full, not just of young partyers partying hard, but of young families, building their futures. And sometimes a loud cousin makes a wedding a lot more fun…..”

The irony of this article is that more than one stereotype has been represented. First, Fort McMurray deserves to be burned, second, presumably there are many single rich over-sexed partying males who make up Fort McMurray, and third, the only reason to invite cousins who do the bridesmaid to your wedding is the expectation that he would bring a thumping big cheque to the party (myth that singles are rich).

The writer of this article clearly states that stereotypes and myths are damaging and do not belong in society as a whole. The reference to the cousin and over-sexed rich male was probably meant to be funny, but it not funny to those singles who are tired of being vilified, intentionally or unintentionally, in the media and by those who think that immediately upon marriage, married persons become decent respectful human beings. Other stereotypes include (profiling)

If stereotypes about singles are going to continually be showcased, how about at the same time giving some examples of how singles, as well as families, did brave and heroic acts during this tragic event?

This blog is of a general nature about financial discrimination of individuals/singles. It is not intended to provide personal or financial advice.

‘SELECTIVE’ DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATORY FOR SINGLES AND THE POOR

Posted on May 4, 2016 by ffswpadmin

‘SELECTIVE’ DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATORY FOR SINGLES AND THE POOR

These thoughts are purely the blunt, no nonsense personal opinions of the author and are not intended to provide personal or financial advice.

Democratic socialism or socialized democracy has achieved some very good things for equalization of social rights in Canada such as the Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance Plan and universal public healthcare as well as human rights policies. Also included are benefits meeting the current basic needs of society for all – care for the elderly, school systems and social security systems such as Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement. This has resulted in improving the lives of women, First Nations, racialized Canadians, the poor and the elderly by social equalization.

Worker benefits won by unions have greatly benefited fairness in working conditions: such as equal pay for equal work, weekends off, lunch and work breaks, vacation and sick leave, minimum wage, eight hour working day, overtime pay, child labor laws, safety and health laws,workers compensation, pensions, health care insurance, etc. The list goes on and on.

Unfortunately, some of the social and economic equalization has been undone by governments giving tax cuts to profitable corporations and high income individuals, giving boutique tax credits to only certain parts of the population and replacing progressive tax systems with flat tax systems. Results of unequal social benefits include lack of affordable housing (violating Maslow’s hierarchy of basic needs), high student debt and less job security.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour has been a contentious issue. The ruling social democratic party in the province has said it is not fair for a single parent to work 50 hours a week and then have to stop at the foodbank to feed the family. Review of research states the premise behind ‘a minimum wage policy supported by a strong social policy is an efficient mechanism against poverty and income erosion of the poorest households. Minimum wage is one of the instruments which can control wage disparity and in this way reduce income inequality’.

An editorial view in the Calgary Herald, April 22, 2018 ‘Meddling with Wages’ (meddling-with-wages) argues against increasing the minimum wage :

‘a higher minimum wage of $15 will add further pain to employers and hurt those the measure is intended to benefit.’

The editorial implies that the single parent referred to in above paragraph does not happen very often and only occurs for two per cent of the provincial population. The editorial then goes on to state that most of the two per cent are not single parents, but youth getting a start in the labour force by working part time while living at home.

‘ The minimum wage was never intended to be something a single person could support a family on. Raising the minimum wage….further imperils the the viability of small businesses and creating greater incentive to trim by shedding jobs and cutting hours.

Canadians are helping low-income families through generous supports from both the federal and provincial governments . More should be done to lift people out of poverty, of course, but it should be achieved with programs that boost their skills and increase their employability. It should not be done by clumsy government meddling.’

Blog author’s comments: Writer states that the minimum wage was never intended to be something a single person could support a family on. Really? REALLY? The premise behind a minimum wage policy supported by a strong social policy is an efficient mechanism against poverty and income erosion of the poorest households. Minimum wage is one of the instruments which can control wage disparity and in this way reduces income inequality. To say that a young person still living at home does not deserve a wage equivalent to a single parent is like saying all those persons working in sweatshops in Bangladesh also don’t deserve a wage equivalent to the same jobs performed in non-third world countries. Also, raising the minimum wage helps the economy through increased spending on the necessities of life and more taxes being paid to support social programs.

Two reader comments put a proper perspective on the results of not increasing the minimum wage. First comment (from Canadian Poverty Institute at Ambrose University) ‘Businesses should pay decent wages’ (pressreader):

‘…..If minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be around $15 today. While education and training programs may reduce poverty, demands for austerity would cut exactly these programs. In abdicating responsibility to pay decent wages, business uploads the cost of low wages to government. Poverty costs the provincial government $7-9 billion annually.

A business model based on poverty wages is untenable. Decent wages are the cost of doing business.

Ensuring a decent income is a shared responsibility. Individuals are doing their part by working. Business must do its part by paying people appropriately, not relying on government and taxpayers to pick up the tab.’

Opinion letter from second reader ‘Creating a more humane province’ (pressreader):

‘By concentrating heavily on the economics of the minimum wage (and indeed, low wages in general), the editorial misses the central point that wages are more about increased opportunity for inclusion and participation. To deny an expansion of these dimensions to low-income workers, simply because of stereotypes, economic short-termism and the assertion that only two per cent of people actually work for minimum wage, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a citizen of this province.

I’m glad our provincial government continues to act in the interests of ordinary citizens and realize that the expansion of justice has a cost. A higher minimum wage, together with the provision of living wages, is the price we can and should pay for the creation of a more just, humane and inclusive province.’

Then there are those who have no regard for left-wing politics. An example is Calgary Herald editorial comment: ‘How soon we forget the economic carnage of left-wing policies’ (calgaryherald). The argument made is that:

‘those who ignore socialist history are doomed to repeat it…..If nobody had ever tried left-wing policies before, we might be justified in giving this “new” socialism a chance. Unfortunately, the world has long been a laboratory for socialist policies with mostly disastrous results.

Democratic socialism has left valuable legacies – like subsidized, widely available health care and education – but also has created a lot of economic carnage. During the 1970s, big-spending, left-wing governments in Canada, Scandinavia and Great Britain created high unemployment and sluggish growth before buckling under the weight of their taxes and debt…

……The province’s premier doesn’t understand, or perhaps doesn’t care, that raising taxes makes struggling citizens poorer, and just transfers wealth from the already wounded private sector to the public sector.

She wants to appease her union comrades by massively raising the minimum wage , which will raise inflation , hurt less profitable industries and reduce employment…..How did our collective memories become so short?’

Reader’s opinion letter ‘Right-wing policies fail’ (pressreader) in response to this editorial states:

‘This column is nonsense….The highest rate of unemployment in the U.K. in recent years were under the reign of Margaret Thatcher. Currently, the only people who benefit from the right wing U.K. government’s policies are the rich.

Food banks, unknown in my younger years, are common and very necessary.

It’s also true that the province’s unemployment rate is unacceptable, but to criticize the premier is wrong. If our economy had been less dependent on oil and gas, we would be better off.

The right-wing trickle-down economic theory is utterly discredited.’

‘SELECTIVE’ DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM

As noted in the above, there has been much that has been good about democratic socialism, but there also has been negative outcomes to democratic socialism. One negative is what we will call ‘selective’ democratic socialism where certain members of society get more social benefits than others.

Examples of ‘selective’ democratic socialism:

Women not being paid same amount as men for same job – Unions have forced the private sector to enforce social benefits such as eight hour day, overtime pay, vacation and sick pay, etc., and above all equal pay for equal work, but the private sector in many cases still has neglected to pay women the same wage for doing same job as men.

There are many who object to the wages and pensions federal and provincial civil and public servants receive. They say these employees are paid too much money, thus causing economic concerns. The irony of this negativity is that one reason why the budgets for civil, public and union employees is higher is that women are actually paid the same wage as men doing the same job.

It would be nice if right-wing financial think tanks used some outside the box thinking and conducted studies on how much of the budgets of unionized employees is dedicated to paying women equally to men. Or, vice versa, how much more money would it take to pay women in the private sector equally to men?

Keep minimum wages low and don’t consider living wages – ‘Selective’ democratic socialism allows the top employees (elite one per cent and the rich) to outpace wages of those at the bottom. Then, because they have the money to do so, they will bypass the democratic social programs of health care and public schools to pay for elite services of private health care and private schools.

Married/Coupled person get more benefits than singles and the poor (singles often excluded from these benefits) – Many persons leaning to political right and working in the private sector view defined contribution public pensions to be unfair as they perceive money for these pensions to be coming from the public purse. However, they also refuse to recognize that singles receiving public pensions are supporting/subsidizing the public pension plans of married/coupled persons. While married/coupled persons are receiving their public pensions, they have been given a boutique tax credit where they get to pension split (benefit added on top of benefit), thus paying less income tax. Singles don’t get to do this and poor married/coupled persons do not get the same benefits from pension splitting as the rich. Yet another level of ‘selective’ democratic socialization is added to the mix when widowed persons (who now technically are single) get a supplementary public pension from their deceased spouses.

It is very difficult for political parties to eliminate the unfair pension splitting tax credit for fear of being voted out. A solution to making the playing field fair for singles versus married/coupled persons could be to give singles a fully refundable tax break during their pension years that is equivalent to amounts received in pension splitting by married/coupled persons. For the widowed person’s public pension marital manna benefit, a solution to remedy this could be to give the widowed spouse whatever is left of the pension in a lump sum just like single deceased persons receive in their estates upon dying. Again, it would be nice if financial think tanks would use some outside the box thinking to evaluate how fair the public pension system is to singles versus married/coupled persons and to analyze who really is getting the bigger slice of the pie.

Affordable housing prices out of reach for singles and poor families – Another ‘selective’ democratic socialist outcome is when affordable housing solutions are put in place, but the poor still pay more per square foot for this housing. The housing prices are out of whack when rich proportionally pay less per square foot (often the bigger the house the less they seem to pay per square foot), but ‘ever’ singles, early divorced persons and poor families pay more. As a result, they also pay more in housing and education taxes, real estate fees and mortgage interest charges than the rich since these are based on price and not the square footage of the housing.

What better evidence is there of this than the case where a single person from San Francisco created a ‘pod’ in the living room of an apartment so he could have a private place to sleep instead of the couch (singles-deserve-affordable-housing). Another is ‘free rent for sex’ advertisements resulting from the out of control Vancouver housing market (pressreader.)

Then there is the insanity of the charmed lives of the rich building luxurious playhouses for their children (pressreader). These playhouses range from $7,000 to $100,000 and may include electricity, fireplaces and cabinets. The sleeping pod of the San Francisco single man could probably be the size of the doghouse for the pets of the children owning these playhouses.

‘Selective’ democratic socialism where families get social benefits and singles are excluded – Many government and business financial solutions and social programs appear to include only families with singles being excluded. One example is Habitat for Humanity who build houses for families only, not singles.

‘Selective’ democratic socialism above all means FAMILIES RULE – Government and politicians in their discussions talk mainly about family, family, family and the middle class instead of talking about ‘families and individuals’. Singles are rarely included in the discussions. ‘Selective’ democratic socialism by definition is exclusionary and selects families to receive benefits with singles rarely being included equally in the benefits.

CONCLUSION

These are just a few examples of ‘selective’ democratic socialism. How positive or negative democratic socialism has been is in the eye of the beholder. However, it is very hard to say that there have been more negatives than positives when one looks at the list of all the accomplishments of union rights and democratic socialism.

Now, if only ‘ever’ singles, early divorced singles and poor families were included equally to other members in society in democratic social formulas, the world would be an even better place.

This blog is of a general nature about financial discrimination of individuals/singles. It is not intended to provide personal or financial advice.