Category Archives: false statements

BIG LITTLE LIES OF SIMPLE TAX (FLAT) RATE

Posted on by
Reply

BIG LITTLE LIES OF SIMPLE (FLAT) TAX RATE

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

This blog post was prompted by a right wing think tank article that once again promotes a flat tax and big little lies that it is already progressive and should replace the progressive tax system.  It was submitted to a local newspaper in shortened format, but was not published.

The article ‘Many misconceptions surround single tax rate’ is reprinted in its entirety at the end of this post along with reader comments.

EVALUATION OF SIMPLE (FLAT) TAX

This right wing author says he is the originator of the simple tax.  In fact, he has changed the name of the flat rate to the simple tax as per explanation given in article as reprinted at the end of this post.  The simple tax of 10% was adopted by the Alberta Conservative Government in 2001.  

While it is true the personal exemption rate was increased during implementation of the simple tax, during their forty year Alberta reign the Conservatives failed to raise the minimum wage to meaningful levels.  (Reality check:  The wealthy also get to use the personal exemption rate.)  One of the best big little lies or gaslighting of this author occurs when he fails to tell the truth that during the implementation of this simple tax the tax rate for lower income persons was changed from 8% to 10%.  There was no Alberta Advantage for lower income earners as a result of the tax rate being increased at the same time personal exemption rate was increased.

He once again spews lies on single tax being progressive.  He says tax paid by the wealthy are a gift to those who pay little or not tax.  Oh, puh-leese.

He states low income earners pay no tax, but fails to mention wealthy never pay their fair share.  He fails to mention the many tax federal and provincial tax loopholes and benefits which filter down to the wealthiest taxpayers.

The wealthy, for example, put their Old Age Security (OAS – a poverty reduction pillar that is only clawed back on top two percent) into TFSAs that are not declared as income.  Forty per cent of Canadians have net worths over $750,000.

The poor pay plenty by suffering financial and mental stresses while trying to pay for basic human necessities on provincial minimum wages which remained static for many years.  Low income earners cannot take advantage of tax loopholes and benefits because they do not have the income to do so.

CONCLUSION

Instead of ‘Conservative gaslighting pants on fire’ half truths, he needs to speak full truths on tax loopholes, benefits and minimum wages.  Progressive versus simple tax and ‘taxes explained in beer’ provides further discussion on fallacies of the simple tax for low income earners (tax-system-explained-in-beer-analogy). (End of post).

Reprint of simple tax article is given below.

‘MANY MISCONCEPTIONS SURROUND SINGLE TAX RATE’, Mark Milke, May 12, 2018 (https://www.pressreader.com/canada/calgary-herald/20180512/281702615355933)

Alberta’s cancelled single tax rate is in the news again after the United Conservative Party passed a policy resolution wanting it back.

 

That was followed by Twitter wars, interviews and commentaries about that tax, much of it uninformed or making obvious points.

 

I know something about the single rate tax system. I wrote about it in a 1998 submission to the Alberta Tax Review Committee, which recommended it be adopted, which it was in 2001.  I favour its return one day, but when spending is controlled and the budget is balanced.

 

Class warfare warriors have long mischaracterized Alberta’s single rate tax, so let’s clear up some misconceptions.

Let’s start with why it is called a single tax and not a flat tax. Because a true flat tax system would mean that no basic exemption exists — that everyone pays the same proportion of tax relative to income. That would be a bad idea. But that was never Alberta’s tax system. It is also why the political and media myth that the single tax was not progressive is nonsense.

 

In 2014, the last year the single-rate system was in effect, Alberta’s basic provincial personal exemption was $17,787. Income earners below that paid nothing in provincial income tax.  As for everyone else, at $25,000 in income, 2.9 per cent went to provincial income tax. At $50,000, the rate was 6.4 per cent. A $100,000 income was taxed 8.2 per cent. The single tax system was progressive.

 

Next up, the silly notion that the single rate tax was a giveaway to the wealthy. Note the language. It assumes money belongs to government and not those who earn it. In that view, any tax relief is a gift. That inverts a more sensible view from citizens to politicians: We will pay reasonable and justifiable taxes, but don’t assume our earnings are your property.

 

A relevant fact: Higher- and middle-income Albertans pay most of the income tax, not those with lower incomes. That is why the former and not the latter would gain in any tax relief scenario.

 

For example, using tax data from 2014, those earning under $50,000 counted for 57.3 per cent of all tax filers and paid just 7.6 per cent of all provincial income tax.  Of note, almost 1.8 million Albertans were in that under $50,000 group in 2014, but nearly half (845,690 Albertans) quite properly paid nothing in tax due to low incomes. (Another 8,290 at higher levels also did not pay provincial income tax for various reasons, such as maximizing previously unused RRSP deductions.)  Those who earned between $50,000 and $100,000 counted for 27 per cent of all tax filers and paid 30.6 per cent of all provincial income tax.

Albertans whose incomes were more than $100,000 accounted for 15.7 per cent of Alberta’s tax filers; they paid 61.8 per cent of all provincial income tax. Point: If one’s argument is that the wealthy should pay a hefty share of Alberta’s income tax burden, the $100,000-plus crowd in Alberta already did (a proportion higher both of tax filers and of total taxes paid than in any other province).  Thus, any substantive tax relief will naturally benefit that group.

 

Here’s the summary: Even when the single rate tax was in effect, Alberta’s over $50,000 tax filers already paid 92.4 per cent of all provincial income tax. And even for those who earned less than $50,000, more than half — more than 920,000 Albertans — paid all the income tax collected from that group.

 

When someone claims a single tax is a giveaway to higher incomes, the rhetoric has it backwards: The gift is actually from more than 2.2 million Albertans at all income levels in 2014, to the more than 850,000 Albertans who quite properly, mostly due to low incomes, paid nothing for the cost of government.

 

READER COMMENTS

#1 – Don’t bother with hard numbers Mark. It doesn’t fit the left wing rhetoric. Math is too hard for them. Lies and innuendo is the tool of the left. And 100k + income earners only paying 62% of the tax. No, Canadians want those earning more than 100k a year to pay 100% of the tax. That way, they get closer to their dream of equality of outcome. The last thing you want to do is stump a Canadian with real facts.

#2 – Your most salient point is that money belongs to those who earn it….not the government. I accept that if we want the social services we now enjoy taxes must be collected. But it must be fair and not punitive, which it is right now.

#3 – Whenever taxes are reduced, the high tax payers will always get the biggest break. Usually the biggest complainers of this move, are the socialists who pay very little tax. When Alberta implemented the single tax rate they increased the personal exemption, if the provincial or federal governments really wanted to help low income earners, just raise the exemption Trump increased the personal exemption for everybody, which means the low wage earners got a major tax break from trump. Currently are personal taxes are twice as high as the US, so why would any professional want to live in Canada compared to the US from a tax perspective.  (End of article).

(This blog is of a general nature about financial discrimination of individuals/singles.  It is not intended to provide personal or financial advice.) This is a WordPress blog designed by a hired individual.

‘GASLIGHTING’ (FINANCIAL) OF SINGLES, THE POOR, MILLENNIALS AND OTHER DISADVANTAGED PERSONS

Posted on by
Reply

‘GASLIGHTING’ (FINANCIAL) OF SINGLES, THE POOR, MILLENNIALS AND OTHER DISADVANTAGED PERSONS

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

This post addresses financial gaslighting which seeks especially to spread financial untruths about the disadvantaged such as singles, the poor and minorities.  Two articles at the end of this post give the history of gaslighting and how it affects society.

WHAT IS GASLIGHTING?

From Wikipedia ‘gaslighting’ is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, hoping to make them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target’s belief.

GASLIGHTING OF THE DISADVANTAGED-EXAMPLES

Middle class definition – Middle class rhetoric says middle class are financially doing poorly, but rhetoric doesn’t include the poor.  Gaslighting occurs when the wealthy won’t admit they are rich.

Poor create their own poverty – Dr. Ben Carson, who grew up in poverty and Trump appointee as USA Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, has made statement that the poor create their own poverty.  This statement is so false, in fact poverty is created for them and they are forced deeper into poverty by decisions and policies of the wealthy, right leaning politicians and society in general.

Children are expensive – Real truth is housing is biggest lifetime expense, not children (at present time though things could change if housing prices drop significantly). Monthly $1000 rent over sixty year adult lifespan to age 80 equals $720,000 negative net worth, seventy year adult lifespan to age 90 equals $840,000, eighty year adult lifespan to age 100 equals $960,000.  Home purchases and child expenses occur only over twenty to twenty five years. While home purchasers may have child expenses they are also accumulating wealth, renters aren’t.

Even one right wing think tank, Fraser Institute, has published article describing why children basic costs are gaslighted and conflated by making them higher than they really are because poor budgeting principles are applied in establishing the costs.  They state cost of raising children per year only costs between $3,000 and $4,500 (cost-of-raising-children).   Statement from second article provides further explanation: (explaining-cost-raising-children)

“Families are generally left free to decide how to raise their children and how much to spend. And families at all income levels have successfully raised children and continue to do so. Most of us will know friends and colleagues who were raised in lower income families. The amount you spend on your child is not the measure of the quality of your parenting. It would be a shame if we discourage prospective parents by insisting that it costs $12,000 to $15,000 (or more) per year to raise a child.”

Singles are told it costs them less to live – Families and married or coupled households without children believe it costs them more to live, one major factor being they are uneducated in the financial realities of what it costs ever singles (never married, no kids) to live.  Gaslighting occurs when households believe married or coupled households have double the expenses and families with two adults and two children have four times the expenses.  However, Low Income Cutoff (LICO) (cost-of-living) and Market Basket Measure (MBN) show if single person is given a value of 1.0, expenses for married or coupled households are 1.4 and for two adult, two children households around 2.0 or 2.2.

Gaslighting of definition  of what family is – An example of singles not being included in family definition is a chart showing family unit description of five stages of family unit life cycle comprised of childhood, early adulthood, married and rearing of children, empty nest and senior stages.  It is disconcerting to note that this chart did not include ever singles (never married, no kids) in the family unit.  After the childhood and early adult stages, singles were not included and were, in fact, invisible in the family unit chart.  Financial gurus often talk about singles, when they really are talking about widowed persons resulting in ever singles being left out of the discussion and false financial advice being perpetuated.

Gaslighting of millennials and future generations – In present political situation future generations are in for a huge financial shock re paying for the financial excesses that have been given to previous generations.  Some of their parents will have been able to accumulate significant wealth in their homes and egregious benefits like Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) and pension splitting not paid for because insufficient tax has been collected to pay for this financial wealth.

Their parents say they want to leave something to their children, but children will be getting less because they will have to pay the taxes their parents didn’t pay.  An example is TFSAs. When one spouse is deceased TFSA will be transferred to surviving spouse with no taxes deducted. However, when TFSA is transferred to children as an inheritance taxes will be deducted, some at a very significant rate if TFSA amount  is substantial.

Square footage of housing for future generations is getting smaller and smaller. Millennials apparently are saying they don’t want live in the McMansions of their parents but it is unrealistic to think anyone will be happy living in 100 or 200 square foot apartments.  It is inhumane to stick anyone into housing that is the size of two jail cells.

Present political financial policies are ensuring benefits and tax loopholes are benefiting wealthy and married and coupled households more while pushing singles and poor households further towards poverty.

LESSONS LEARNED

Shea Emma Fett wrote in Everyday Feminism:

“I believe that gaslighting is happening culturally and interpersonally on an unprecedented scale, and that this- gaslighting- is the result of a societal framework where we pretend everyone is equal while trying simultaneously to preserve inequality”.

The financial gaslighting phenomenon appears to be a result of an ‘only me is important’ thinking and lack of critical and balanced thinking on how financial issues affect all segments of society, not just the middle class, married or coupled persons and families with children.  This financial dysfunction is perpetuated by political systems where vote getting appears to preserve the thinking that they are trying to ensure everyone is more financially equal while simultaneously preserving financial inequality.  Financial policies may appear to help low income persons, but same policies also make the rich even richer (Tax Free Savings Accounts).  Charity has become an ever increasing gaslighting method of helping the poor, but charity only masks poverty, it does not solve causes of poverty.

SIX REASONS WHY MARRIED/COUPLED PERSONS ABLE TO ACHIEVE MORE FINANCIAL WEALTH (POWER) (reasons).

TWO ARTICLES ON HISTORY AND MEANING OF GASLIGHTING

From Theater to Therapy to Twitter, the Eerie History of Gaslighting by Katy Waldman (history_of_gaslighting) – the following are excerpts from the article which gives a history and discussion of gaslighting.

‘In the 1938 play Gas Light a felonious man seeks to convince his wife that her mind is unraveling. When she notices that he’s dimmed the gaslights in the house, he tells her she is imagining things—they are as bright as they were before. The British play became a 1944 American film starring Ingrid Bergman as the heroine, Paula, and Charles Boyer as Gregory, her abusive, crazy-making husband.

A match struck; a metaphor flickered to life. Gas Light reminded viewers how uniquely terrifying it can be to mistrust the evidence of your senses. Flame made an evocative figure for Paula’s consciousness—her sense of self guttering when Gregory insisted she hadn’t seen what she saw.

Today to gaslight means to overwrite someone’s reality, to manipulate her into believing she’s imagining things…..Prototypical gaslighter. The term can attach to anything surreal enough to make you question your sanity, like the political news cycle, but gaslight arose from psychoanalytic literature, where it described a specific “transfer” of psychic conflicts from the perpetrator to the victim. In a 1981 article called “Some Clinical Consequences of Introjection: Gaslighting,” psychologist Edward Weinshel sketched out the dysfunctional dance: One person “externalizes and projects,” while the other “incorporates and assimilates.”…..Shea Emma Fett wrote on Everyday Feminism, “I believe that gaslighting is happening culturally and interpersonally on an unprecedented scale, and that this is the result of a societal framework where we pretend everyone is equal while trying simultaneously to preserve inequality.” Members of minority groups that face stereotypes about poor mental competence are seen as especially vulnerable.

Gaslighting identifies a real phenomenon: the way critics of a line of thought sometimes try to discount the perceptions of the person producing that thought. Gaslighting equals misdirection, distraction, and the deliberate denial of reality……Donald J. Trump is more than a flickering gaslight (or gasbag)—he’s the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Republicans are moths in his flame.’

The Economic Gaslighting of a Generation by Anastasia Bernoullli  (describes herself as an aging millennial) – following paragraph is a  excerpt of an excellent worthwhile to read article (the-economic-gaslighting-of-a-generation):

“We are acting like a nation, and a generation, that feels guilty over screw-ups we did not commit. I obviously support the idea that everybody should live within their means, pay their bills, and be generally responsible, but when you’re doing your best, and you still can’t make ends meet, despite working full time, that’s a society problem, not a you problem. We need to overcome the lifetime of financial gaslighting we have received. Honestly take a look at your spending, and see if you’re as stupid as you’ve been lead to believe you are. I think it will be eye opening.”

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

POLITICIAN’S RESPONSE LETTER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND SINGLES’ FINANCES

Posted on by
6

POLITICIAN’S RESPONSE LETTER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND SINGLES’ FINANCES

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

The post on Fort McMurray Fire Disaster relief (fort-mcmurray-fire-disaster)showed how family units comprised of singles received the lowest financial assistance of all family units.  This information was sent to Province of Alberta politicians to make them aware of this situation.

One of the politician’s (right wing Conservative) response to this information is outlined here.  This letter continues to show the financial misunderstanding and financial discrimination of singles in this country.

A portion of the letter is reproduced as follows:

“Data from Statistics Canada Table 203-0023 concerning total household expenditures shows that Alberta government and Red Cross financial assistance for single person households, lone parent households, and couples without children total between 50% and 63% of typical monthly expenditures for those household types. The only household type to receive financial assistance approximating their average monthly household expenditures were couples with children. The same data shows that a two person household with no children has almost twice (184%) the household expenses of a one person household.

Given that shelter, food, household operations, transportation, healthcare, and recreation are the largest components and total approximately 50% of household expenditures of all the household types, and given that most of those goods/services are provided without cost or at steep discounts to evacuees, and given that those goods/services are used in reduced amount during evacuation, the level of temporary financial support provided does not appear unreasonable. However, given that some organizations’ aid programs are focused on the needs of mothers, seniors, and other demographics, there may be an opportunity for more organizations or programs focused on single adults.

It is true that two parent families with two or more children receive more financial assistance than the other family types, however we are not aware of a compelling public benefit to reducing financial assistance to individuals living as two parent families with children on the basis of their family status.

With respect to potential human rights violations, the financial assistance appears to be provided without discrimination on the basis of any protected human rights grounds, with the reasonable exception of children who have lower financial needs than adults and seniors. As far as we are aware, “financial human rights” is an interesting concept but not currently a well-founded legal doctrine in Canada or any other jurisdiction. In order for treatment of particular social groups to amount to persecution, any alleged violation of basic human rights would need to arise out of repeated or mistreatment which causes personal harm the affected individuals. All of the available evidence suggests that the relevant governments intend to rebuild the wildfire-affected areas and to resume providing services to individuals communities in the same ways as before the wildfires.”

First, the Conservative right wing politician’s letter refers to Statistics Canada Table 203-0023 showing 2013 household expenditures for family units of one person households, lone parent with children, couples without children, couples with children as well as other family unit types.  It is interesting to note that this data was based on surveys and these expenditures include tobacco and alcohol as well as games of chance.  These are wants, not needs and do not deserve to be included in any discussion of fairness of financial expenditures or financial disaster assistance of family units.

Second, the letter readily admits that two parent with children family units received the most assistance. The statement also is made as follows:  “we are not aware of a compelling public benefit to reducing financial assistance to individuals living as two parent families with children on the basis of their family status”. Now that is real fairness!

The statement “The same data shows that a two person household with no children has almost twice (184%) the household expenses of a one person household” is inherently false.  There are many sources of information showing that it costs singles 60-70 per cent of what it costs a married/coupled family unit to live (moneysense).

For a more accurate comparison of percentage of living expenses incurred by family units, one could use living wage analysis and equivalence scales.

Two Living Wage studies for Canadian cities are Guelph and Wellington and Grande Prairie (table at end of post) show living expenses (not middle class living, but bare bones living to prevent homelessness).  In both of these studies, it should be noted that singles are not allowed the purchase or use of a vehicle.  Instead, they have to rely on transit and taxis.

The Guelph and Wellington 2013 study (livingwagecanada-FINAL)  showed living expenses for singles at $25,380, lone parent with one child $40,704, and two parent family with two children $56,796.  The Grande Prairie 2012 study (GP.pdf) showed living expenses for singles $19,284, lone parent with one child $41,844 and two parents with two children $62,844.   Calculation of Guelph and Wellington percentages for single in comparison to lone parent with a child is 62 per cent and in comparison to two parents with two children 45 per cent.  Grande Prairie percentages of single in comparison to lone parent with one child is 46 per cent and to two parents with two children 30 per cent.

(It should be noted that one of the significant differences for Grande Prairie percentages of singles to other family units is shelter where single is allowed to share a two bedroom apartment.  If $859 rent is for allowed for not shared one bedroom Grande Prairie apartment to equal one bedroom apartment in Guelph/Wellington study, then the total annual expenditure becomes  $29,592 or 70% of lone parent with one child and 47 per cent of two parent with two children.  The percentages for singles then become more closely aligned between the two studies).                                         

It is very difficult to find Canadian living wage statistics on married/coupled persons with no children as they are never included in these studies.  If a few statistics from the USA living wage studies are used (New York 2016 (counties) example single adult $21, 382 and two adults  with no children $34,582; Salem, Oregon (Salem-OR) single adult $28,140 and married couple with no children $37,536) then percentage of singles to married or coupled and no children households is calculated as 62 per cent and 75 per cent respectively.

To summarize, the Living Wage studies for Canada and USA show that percentages of singles cost of living to lone one parent one child or two person no children households ranges from 62 to 75 per cent.

The table at the end of this post using Statistics Canada data shows that singles and lone parent families are not doing very well with respect to incomes.  Present median incomes are equivalent to living wage incomes (bare minimum to prevent homelessness).  Likewise, median net worth shows these same households are at the bottom of the scale in comparison to households with two adults.

Equivalence scales have also been used to provide comparisons of costs of living between different family units (households).  The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) modified equivalence scale and square root equivalence scales are two examples.  The basis for equivalence scales are described as follows:  The needs of a household grow with each additional member but – due to economies of scale in consumption– not in a proportional way. Needs for housing space, electricity, etc. will not be three times as high for a household with three members than for a single person. With the help of equivalence scales each household type in the population is assigned a value in proportion to its needs. The factors commonly taken into account to assign these values are the size of the household and the age of its members (whether they are adults or children).

Table for two equivalence scales:

equivalence scales

Statistics Canada 75F0002M – Section 2 ‘The LIM and proposed Modifications’ (75f0002m) provides an excellent overview of what is happening in Canada.  This paper proposes  modifications to the existing LIM (Low Income Measure) methodology.

“The first is to replace economic family by household as the basic accounting unit in which individuals pool income and enjoy economies of scale in consumption.   Secondly and equally if not more important, household is the international standard in comparative statistical surveys of income and well-being while the economic family concept is rarely employed by other countries.  Under the proposed modification, an individual will be defined as in low-income if the household as a whole is in low-income which in turn will generate different low-income statistics.   Adopting the square root equivalence scale – the square root has declining factors for each subsequent member while the LIM scale does not, and thus flattens out after the third member.. Furthermore, under the Square Root scale one needs only consider how many people are in the family whereas using the LIM scale one needs to keep in mind both the age of family members as well as whether the family is a single parent family”.

(It should be noted that there is no perfect system, however, equivalence scales system is one method that provides a decent measure of  financial fairness with respect to cost of living assessments for all members of family units regardless of marital status).

Finally, in regards to the letter and human rights discrimination in relation to singles finances, singles are discriminated against every single day.  This  has been described in a past post.  Re Allowance Program and Credits benefits, 2009 Policy Brief, “A Stronger Foundation-Pension Reform and Old Age Security” by Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, page 4 (policyalternatives.ca), states:

“This program discriminates on basis of marital status as confirmed by case brought under the Charter of Rights where federal court agreed program was discriminatory and ruled it would be too expensive to extend program on basis of income regardless of marital status”.

As well, the Progressive Conservative Party has been very diligent in implementing boutique tax credits which have consistently benefited families more.  One major example of this is pension splitting in which senior married/couple household benefit, but singles get nothing.  How is this not financially discriminatory?

CONCLUSION

  • Politicians need to become more financially intelligent about what it costs singles to live in this country and the financial formulas the country is using, for example, equivalence scales.
  • Financial formulas need to include singles equally to family households.  Singles need to be Included in the financial family.
  • All household types including singles need to be included in financial disaster recovery programs with equal dignity and respect.  Singles, after all, also donated to the Red Cross program.  A solution to distribute disaster monies equally could be to use household and equivalence scales formulas.
  • Politicians, government, families and organizations like the Red Cross need to educate themselves  on  what financial discrimination is and to include singles equally in financial formulas.
  • What is not needed is more ‘organizations’ and aid programs focused on the needs of mothers, seniors, and other demographics (single adults)’.  (Habitat for Humanity does not include ever singles in their building program).  These are only band aid solutions to what is the real problem, financial inequity of financial formulas.  What is needed is for financial formulas  to treat all households fairly and equally by using equivalence scales.
  • How about another novel idea – treat benefits (benevolent programs) equally to expenditure programs (boutique tax credits) using equivalence scales.  The Alaska Permanent Funds Dividends and Ralph buck programs (money-benefit-programs) grossly discriminated against singles by giving monies to children who have not contributed one cent to the economy.  Singles paid taxes for these dollars that are distributed to children who have paid nothing.
  • Regarding financial human rights and discrimination, the government has to yet provide an answer as to why the Allowance Program and Credit benefits is being continued through to at least 2029 even though the courts ruled it to be discriminatory.

 

living wage in dollars

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

INCOMPLETE REPORTING OF NEWS AND MEDIA ARTICLES PROMOTE FINANCIAL INEQUALITY OF SINGLES TO MARRIED/COUPLED PERSONS

Posted on by
1

INCOMPLETE REPORTING OF NEWS AND MEDIA  ARTICLES PROMOTE FINANCIAL INEQUALITY OF SINGLES TO MARRIED/COUPLED PERSONS

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

While it is recognized that news and media articles are limited by space, often what is left unsaid promotes financial inequality of singles in comparison to married/coupled persons.  Also, the misinformation of research and studies is perpetuated by other organizations picking up the misleading information and reprinting it.

Examples are as follows:

“Four Ways Senior Singles Lose Out” by Ted Rechtshaffen (outlined in Dec. 2, 2015 blog post /false-assumptions/).  Rechtshaffen’s article left ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separated persons out by exclusion because the definition of single status was incorrectly used.  Instead, the ‘singles’ he referred to are actually widowers.  He stated how widowed persons financially lose out in tens of thousands of dollars because they are no longer part of a couple.  He suggests that tax systems should be made fairer, but only mentions widowed and later in life divorce/separated persons.  There is no mention of tax systems including ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced persons.

This article was republished by CARP carp/ (Canadian Association of Retired Persons) and was sited in other news media outlets such as Financial Post financialpost, and National Bank Clear Facts clearfacts.

“An Analysis of the Economic Circumstances of Canadian Seniors” by Richard Shillington of Tristat Resources and the Broadbent Institute (February 28, 2016 blog post continued-financial-illiteracy-of-financial-gurus)  was sited in several news articles as follows:

Huffington Post, Daniel Tencer, February 16, 2016 “Are Canadians Ready for Retirement?  Not Even Close, Broadbent Institute” (huffingtonpost.) states:

‘Half of Canadians aged 55 to age 64 who don’t have an employer pension have less than $3,000 saved up for retirement.

 

Nearly half (47 per cent) of Canadians aged 55 to 65 without an employer pension and earn $50,000 and $100,000 a year have saved an average of $21,000.

 

Among those who earn $25,000 – $50,000 and don’t have an employer pension, the average savings is a paltry $250.

Median Income for single seniors-At the same time, the study says social support for retirees has become less generous. Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) have fallen behind over the decades, and now give seniors just 60 per cent of median income, down from 76 per cent in 1984.

 

The report comes as the federal government launches pre-budget consultation hearings. Though the study doesn’t delve into specific policy options, it says the Liberals’ plans to increase the GIS for singles retirees will make little dent in senior poverty.

 

The plan “should remove 85,000 senior singles from the poverty rolls — leaving 634,000 seniors living in poverty,” the left-leaning Broadbent Institute said in a statement.’

Globe and Mail, Shawn McCarthy, February 15, 2016 “Many Canadians entering retirement with inadequate savings, study (theglobeandmail) says:

‘Income trends suggest the percentage of Canadian seniors living in poverty will increase in the coming years, especially for single women who already face a higher than average rate, the report said. The poverty rate for seniors will climb at the same time as a sharply rising number of Canadians hit retirement age in the next two decades; more than 20 per cent of the population will be older than 65 within 10 years.

 

Ottawa’s pledge to increase by 10 per cent the guaranteed income supplement – paid out to the poorest seniors – would cost $700-million and remove 85,000 single people – mostly women – from the poverty rolls.  But that would still leave 634,000 seniors living below the poverty line. And that number will grow dramatically in the coming years.’

Global News, Monique Muise, National Online Journalist, February 16, 2016 “Canadians nearing retirement with ‘totally inadequate’ savings (globalnews):  study” observations are much the same as outlined above.

creb now (Calgary Real Estate Board) February 19 to 25, 2016, “Canadians ill-prepared for retirement”  (crebnow) study  observations are much the same as above, but also adds statement:

‘Already, the spread between the OAS/GIS guarantee levels and the low-income measure for 2015 – the spread that seniors need to fill using the Canada or Quebec Pension plans (CPP/QPP), private pensions and private savings – is about $5,600 for single seniors and $4,700 for couples. The overall median value of retirement assets of those aged 55 to 64 with no accrued employer pension benefits (representing 47 per cent of this age cohort), is just over $3,000.’

 

Also in big letters ‘Amongst Canada’s single persons without pension income, the median income in under $20,000’.

Not one of these articles mentions from the Broadbent Institute study that when using LIM the poverty rates for singles seniors is nearly 30 per cent.  Also, the proportion of the population receiving the GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement for Canadians in poverty) is higher for senior singles (including widowed) living alone than couples, and higher for single women (between 44 per cent and 48 per cent) than for single men (between 31 per cent and 37 per cent).  It also does not mention that reliance on the GIS is greater for single seniors that it is for senior couples across all age ranges.

In addition there are 719,000 seniors living below the poverty line.  This total includes 469,000 senior singles and 250,000 living in an economic family.  This is 65 per cent of singles in comparison to 35 per cent living in an economic family!  Sixty-five percent of singles, why is this never reported?  Why is the full information of singles finances never worthy enough to report with same equality as families?

Some of the articles above also mention the the new GIS increase of 10 per cent for single seniors “should remove 85,000 senior singles from the poverty rolls — leaving 634,000 seniors living in poverty.”  Statement with full truth should read:  “should remove 85,000 senior singles from the poverty rolls – leaving 634,000 seniors (384,000 senior singles and 250,000 living in an economic family)”.  This still leaves more senior singles in poverty than those living in an economic family!  ‘Half truths’ reporting sometimes is almost as good as telling a lie!

What also is not mentioned by the media is that the Broadbent Institute study does not treat home ownership as a retirement asset.  The report states:  

‘This analysis has not treated home equity as a retirement asset because the replacement rate analysis has as its objective an income that allows one to enjoy a lifestyle comparable to that which existed pre-retirement. We do not include home equity here because we accept that the pre-retirement lifestyle for many middle- and moderate-income Canadians includes continued home ownership’.

Home ownership is a big factor in determining the standard of living for seniors in their retirement years.  Statistics Canada 2011 shows approximately 69 per cent of Canadians own their own home.  About four out of five (82.4%) married/coupled people own their home, while less than half (48.5 per cent) of singles own their home.  Paying rent will have much more impact on poverty than owning a home outright.

CONCLUSION

To provide the real truth about singles’ poverty all it would have taken is the addition of 10 – 20 words to the articles (719,000 seniors live below the poverty line.  This total includes 469,000 senior singles and 250,000 living in an economic family.  The GIS increase for senior singles still leaves 634,000 seniors  – 384,000 senior singles and 250,000 living in an economic family in poverty).

The GIS increase of 10 per cent for senior singles is a paltry amount compared to all the marital manna benefits that has been given to married/coupled persons like pension splitting.

The sad reality is that by omission of singles from the conversation true facts of singles finances are never fully reported; therefore, there is little understanding on the part of married/coupled persons, families, government, businesses, and decision making bodies on what it truly costs singles to live.  Singles need to be included in financial formulas at the same level as married/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.

HOW MARITAL STATUS IMPACTS DEDUCTIONS, CREDITS FOR MARRIED/COUPLED PERSONS

Posted on by
1

HOW MARITAL STATUS IMPACTS DEDUCTIONS, CREDITS FOR MARRIED/COUPLED PERSONS

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

(While researching online for information on last two posts, this article came up:   “Love and taxes: Canadians confused on how marital status impacts deductions, credits” by Darah Hansen and published in Yahoo Finances on February 12, 2016 just before Valentine’s day.  This article and the comments following the article provide some interesting insight into thoughts of Canadian citizens on reporting of marital status on income tax forms.  This article and comments is also a good follow-up to the information entered in the last two posts.

Comments of the author of this post are shown in italics.)

Quotes From Article

Quote from article states:

  • ‘Recent survey by Leger, on behalf of H&R Block Canada, found that more than half of us mistakenly think that married and common-law spouses can file a joint return to save money on their taxes. Another 40 per cent believe it’s up to us to decide whether to claim our marital status on our tax returns, while a handful of respondents doubt the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has guidelines to determine that status.
  • Couples are required by law to check the correct status box in tax forms.
  • Family incomes in Canada are not combined for the purpose of calculating tax; however, they can be for the purpose of calculating income-tested benefits, such as the GST/HST credit or the National Child Benefit supplement.
  • Couples also stand to benefit from combining their charitable donations, transit passes and medical expenses.
  • And, new this year, parents of children under 18 years stand to gain from a newly announced federal tax credit. Often referred to as the “family tax cut”, the new measure allows a higher earning spouse to transfer in kind up to $50,000 in income to his or her spouse in order to collect a tax credit of up to $2,000.Canadian taxpayers are required by law to answer the marital status question correctly.  “If you lie, it’s tax fraud,” says Golombek…..
  • To be considered common-law, two people must live together in a conjugal relationship for 12 months or immediately if you have a child together. If you receive benefits you are not entitled to because of an incorrect marital status, you can bank on being asked to repay them.
  • One final misconception: About 44 per cent of Canadians believe that once you are divorced, you can claim as single the following year. But once you have filed as married, you can never claim single. You are instead classified as separated, divorced or widowed’, (end of quote).

Comments from Readers

The comments following the article, of which there were many, resulted in very different viewpoints.  Indeed, some comments turned out to be very derogatory and inflammatory as often occurs in forums of this kind.  Families with children call singles ‘selfish’ and single call families with children ‘breeders’, etc.  Analysis of the comments revealed some commonalities.

A large majority of Canadian citizens, it seems, don’t have a clue about declaration of their marital status on income tax forms, especially those that are married, divorced, separated, or living common-law.  Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has very clear definitions of marital status, so why the confusion?

Some of the reasons why incorrect reporting of marital status on income tax forms are as follows, (these are comments that were submitted by the readers):

Unhealthy or unequal relationships with their significant other.  

  • One comment:  ‘good luck in filling as common-law in my case my partner refuses to file common-law, said his taxes are complicated, and we been together now for 5 years. I look at it he is hiding something and don’t want me to know his business.’

Some don’t seem to want to record their marital status as outlined in CRA rules. One of the biggest issues on recording marital status seems to revolve around those that are divorced/separated and what they will have to give to the other spouse in the way of child and spousal support.

  • ‘Once you are legally married you can never again claim “single”. If you divorce, you must say “divorced”, even if you were divorced 40 years ago. If you remarry, of course, you then check the “married” box once again. Until your partner dies, whereby you become “widowed” until you remarry or die yourself.  To be “common law” you will have been living together for 12 months prior to filing your taxes, – or right away if you have a child together and it happens to be less than that.  (Even if divorced for many year, marital status would still be divorced).’
  • ‘Making a “stupid decision” not to inform CRA about this issue will often come back to bite you.’
  • ‘There are more tax breaks for single moms then for being married. It is actually scary to tell them when you finally do get married. There goes everything.’
  • ‘Seems strange, usually you marry the mom not the kids. Not sure why she would stop getting benefits to support her kids. Note to self, stay clear of single moms and the tax man will pin you with the responsibility.’
  • ‘So why (does)  Revenue Canada have different category for divorced people? to have a reason to garnish…  They do this because people who are separated or divorced often have separation agreements/court orders for making support payments. Spousal support payments are taxable in the hands of the recipient and deductible for the payer. Since there are no slips that go with these payments they want to make sure that both parties are claiming it or including it correctly (i.e. not just being deducted by the payer and not included in income for the recipient).’

Many income tax filers have no clue what benefits they will get and how marital status will affect those benefits.  Married/coupled persons don’t seem to realize they will receive more benefits throughout their married/coupled lives than will singles, particularly ‘ever’ (never married, no kids) singles.

  • ‘Single working professionals get taxed the hardest with the fewest deductions.’
  • ‘There is no benefit in being married. Stay single especially single mothers.’ (Married/coupled persons seem to never be happy with the benefits they get).
  • ‘don’t forget to add to move in with your boyfriend either, if you want the benefits or to minimize your tax, of course based on that rationale they should struggle on one income just to get benefits is quite irrational thinking.’  (This presumably was a tongue-in-cheek remark to the above comment.)
  • ‘You may not see the benefits of being married when it comes to taxes, but financially there are a lot of benefits to not be single. Sharing costs like same  housing is huge and when finances are done with purpose in mind can lead to wealth creation.’ (This is known as being able to live more cheaply because of economies of scale-Six Reasons why Married/Coupled Persons able to Achieve More Wealth). six-reasons-why-married-coupled-persons-are-able-to-achieve-wealth/
  • ‘But there is no denying  that two people going in the direction accomplish way more than one person by him/herself….. those who stay together are better off statistically in a financial sense than those who go about it alone.’ (This is because of  ability to accumulate wealth times two persons and ‘rule of 72’ -Six Reasons why Married/Coupled Persons able to Achieve More Wealth)
  • ‘Couples can transfer unused credits to each other. Singles lose unused tax credits.’  (This is because of marital manna benefits – Six Reasons why \Married/Coupled Persons able to Achieve More Wealth)
  • ‘I was once told by my neighbour that he and his wife would be better off financially if they divorced. Obviously not ALL Canadians are confused about tax credits and deductions. (Next comment) Not so. Couples can transfer unused credits to each other. Singles lose unused tax credits.’  (This is known as manipulation of assets as stated in ‘Six Reasons why Married/Coupled Persons able to Achieve More Wealth).
  • ‘I have never paid more than what I owe based on my income whether single, married or divorced. The only difference it makes is for benefits like GST rebates, etc….’
  • ‘Family incomes in Canada are not combined for the purpose of calculating tax.’  
  • ‘They are only combined for potential benefits such as GST tax credits… etc…..you can transfer unused tax credits to lower the spouse’s taxable income, thereby reducing their taxes. CRA combines them for the purpose of calculating GIS benefits and HST refunds.’

Some tax filers choose to falsely record their marital status, though they know they are committing fraud.

  • ‘Most Canadians play dumb as they are fully aware they are breaking the rules and pretend like they didn’t know. They cheat hoping they will not get caught.’
  • ‘If you are married the tax form asks for your spouse’s name, SIN and whatever.’
  • .It’s not your fault you didn’t get caught. It is your fault for claiming single while married. Let me simplify this for you. Two scenarios. Husband and wife. Both make $35k. If they claim single each pays tax on $35k. If they claim married EACH pays tax on $35k. The combining is only for tax credit purposes. Percents don’t change due to marriage or not. Govt fraud is irrelevant to this conversation. And if it is true… then so what … two wrongs make a right? Seriously you need to get professional advice. Just because you have not ‘been caught’ yet does not mean it won’t happen. You are cheating and if you are getting tax credits fraudulently, you will pay a penalty if caught.
  • For those who don’t think there are repercussions to false filing, you can view the convictions from each province at Google “CRA Criminal investigations actions, charges, and convictions”.

Many more comments were made and are too numerous to be included here.

CONCLUSIONS

  • If there is confusion about how to record marital status on tax forms, get professional help.
  • Incorrect filing of marital status on tax forms constitutes fraud.
  • Education, education, education – married/coupled persons need to educate themselves on all the benefits they receive from date of marriage to after their spouse is deceased.  They need to realize that singles have been left out of financial formulas and do not receive benefits such as transfer of spousal credits, pension splitting, tax relief if one spouse is in nursing home, etc. even though it costs singles more to live than married/coupled persons living as a single unit.
  • Singles deserve to be included in financial formulas at 70% of that given to married/coupled persons.  Many singles have worked throughout their entire lives  (35, 40, 45 years) and,with their taxes have supported  married/coupled persons and their families; therefore singles deserve equal financial representation in financial formulas.
  • Problems that divorced/separated persons have with spousal/child support, etc. should not be the problem of singles and should not be a reason to say that ‘singles’ are lying on tax forms (especially ‘ever’ singles who only have one option to record on tax forms, that is ‘single’).

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

CONTINUED FINANCIAL ILLITERACY OF FINANCIAL GURUS EQUALS FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SENIOR SINGLES (Part 2 of 2)

Posted on by
6

CONTINUED FINANCIAL ILLITERACY OF FINANCIAL GURUS EQUALS FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SENIOR SINGLES (Part 2 of 2)

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

This blog post is a comment on the Broadbent Institute Report on the economic circumstances of Canadian seniors.  The Broadbent Institute is a left-leaning social democratic think tank founded by Ed Broadbent who was a past leader of the New Democratic Party .  It describes itself as an independent, non-partisan organization championing progressive change through the promotion of democracy, equality, and sustainability and the training of a new generation of leaders.  Its mission is to “Support, develop, and promote social democratic principles for the 21st century”, “Propose new solutions for a more equal society”, and “Equip a new generation of progressive campaigners & thinkers with the tools they need to build a social democratic society through training and education”.

This post addresses excerpts from the report first (Part 1), and then is followed by comments on the report (Part 2).

COMMENTS ON  REPORT – PART 2 OF 2

In February, 2016 the Broadbent Institute in Canada and Richard Shillington of Tristat Resources published the report:  “An Analysis of the Economic Circumstances of Canadian Seniors”.       (analysis_of_the_economic_circumstances_of_canadian_seniors)

The report information is mainly directed towards poverty of seniors without an employer pension plan (roughly 47 per cent) and therefore, many of these seniors have wholly inadequate retirement savings.

(It should be noted in the report that single seniors does not refer to marital status, but the fact that they live alone.  Therefore, single seniors includes ‘ever’-never married, no kids-singles, divorced/separated, and widowed seniors living alone).

Review of the report reveals some points that are very disconcerting.

  • The true facts of what it costs singles to live is under-reported.  Married/coupled persons and, indeed, the author of the Broadbent report do not seem to realize that the widowed (married/coupled persons whose spouses are deceased) are a part of the singles population.  It is a well known fact that it costs singles approximately 70 per cent of what it costs married/coupled persons to live as a single unit.  This fact is never addressed in the report. (Using LIM 11.1 percent of seniors live in poverty–719,000 seniors:  419,000 singles and 250,000 living in an economic family.  The poverty is astonishingly high at almost 30 per cent for senior singles without employer pension plans).  (Widowed persons and the extra benefits they get are discussed later in this post).
  • All the extra benefits that have been given to married/coupled persons are never addressed.  Governments continue to create financial silos where more and more benefits are given to married/coupled persons even though they are able to live with less because of economies of scale, but not to singles resulting in financial inequality.  (Following table was updated on March 8, 2016 with additional information).

financial silos6

  • It is ludicrous that this report does not treat home equity as a retirement asset.  Those who have to rent are at a much greater financial disadvantage than those who own their own home.  Quote from report : “ …..Many of those who argue that there is no looming pension crisis have included home equity as a liquid asset.  This analysis has not treated home equity as a retirement asset because the replacement rate analysis has as its objective an income that allows one to enjoy a lifestyle comparable to that which existed pre-retirement.  We do not include home equity here because we accept that the pre-retirement lifestyle for many middle- and moderate-income Canadians include continued homeownership”, (Page 19).

According to Statistics Canada 2011 articles “Living Arrangements of Seniors” and “Homeownership and Shelter Costs in Canada”:      (statcan.gc.ca) and (statcan)

  • The average household total income for couple-family households was about twice that of non-family households (which were primarily one-person households) and lone-parent households ($101,000 per year versus $43,000 per year and $55,000 per year respectively).  Thus, while lone-parent households and non-family households had a lower cost than couple-family households, the lower household total income results in a higher proportion exceeding the affordability threshold”.
  • Approximately 69 per cent of Canadians own their own home.  About  four out of five (82.4%) married/coupled people own their own home, while less than half (48.5%) of non-family households (singles) own their dwellings.  Just over half (55.6%) of lone-parent households own their dwelling.  (It stands to reason that more senior married/coupled and widowed persons will own their own homes, while senior singles–‘ever’ single and early divorced)–are more likely to have to rent placing them in greater income inequality and a lower standard of living and quality of life). Regardless of housing tenure, the proportion of non-family households and lone-parent households that paid 30% or more of total income towards shelter costs was about twice the proportion of the couple-family households.
  • Quote “approximately 56.4 per cent of the senior population (5 million total seniors in 2011) live as part of a couple and about 24.6 per cent of the senior population live alone (excludes those living with someone else, in senior citizen facilities and collective housing).

Singles are constantly told to ‘go live with someone’ when they have difficulties paying for housing; meanwhile married/coupled and widowed persons may be living in their big houses (enjoying the same lifestyle they had before pre-retirement) and seeking help with paying their taxes while refusing to move to a less expensive dwelling.  (senior-singles-pay-more-part-3-of-4)

  • It is ludicrous for this report to state that seventy per cent  income replacement should be a benchmark in the formulas.  Seventy per cent income replacement is entirely different for those who own their own home versus those who rent.  It is selfish to think that the rich and married/coupled persons should be able to live same lifestyle post-retirement as pre-retirement when singles and early divorced generally will have a poorer lifestyle throughout their entire lives.

An example is the Financial Post financial evaluation “Bright Future Despite Big Debt, Small Income” published in Calgary Herald on February 20, 2016 where Ontario young couple’s after tax income is $4,800 per month and their food budget is $800 and entertainment $160 per month for two people.  Just these two items are 20 per cent of their budget.  Either they live in an area with very high food costs or they are living the high life for one of the necessities of life in Maslow’s Hierarchy of need.  Seventy per cent replacement at retirement would give this couple an unreasonably high style of life for food in comparison to singles.   Reader letter mentioned above in ‘senior-singles-pay-more-part 3-of-4’ link suggested singles should be able to live on just $200 per month for food.

  • It is ludicrous to suggest that persons without employer pension plans cannot save, especially those with incomes over $100,000.

Quote from report:  “For those with incomes in $50,000-$100,000 range, the median value (savings) is only $21,000” (Page 3).

If those with pension plans have forced saving, it it is ridiculous to say that those without pension plans are not able to save.  For example, a $75,000 before-tax income may result in $600-$700 per month being deducted from pay cheque (employer deductions are excluded in this discussion).   It is also ridiculous to say that in this First World country persons with $100,000 plus incomes cannot save.  One of the principles of good finances is to save 10 per cent.  Whole report promotes greed of looking for more benefits and not planning for the future if there is no plan for saving during working years.

  • Reporting false information on marital status is a crime.  Quote from report states:  “Table 7 represents the results of increasing the single and married GIS amounts by the same percentage.  One should keep in mind that there is an incentive for seniors to appear as singles to governments even if they are living as a couple.  This is because the GIS for senior couples is less than twice the amount for singles.  An increase in the GIS for singles only (with no increase for couples) would increase this so-called ‘tax on marriage’ and associated incentives.  This would encourage couples to hide their cohabitation from the authorities for financial reasons”, (Page 21).

GIS for senior couples should, repeat, should be less than twice the amount for singles.  Singles (particularly ‘ever’ and early divorced singles including the author of this blog) have worked very hard to have financial formulas include singles at 70 per cent of married/coupled persons living as a single unit.  The GIS for senior singles is more than married/coupled persons because it costs more for singles (including widowed persons)  to live than it does for married/coupled persons living as a single unit.  Why can’t married/coupled persons understand this?  When married/widowed persons become widowed their living costs will go up.

The statement  “An increase in the GIS for singles only (with no increase for couples) would increase this so-called ‘tax on marriage’ and associated incentives. This would encourage couples to hide their cohabitation from the authorities for financial reasons” is absurd and selfish.  Tax on marriage, why can’t married/coupled persons realize all the extra benefits they receive as outlined in table above???  When is ‘enough’ ever going to be ‘enough’ for them???

The notation (# 28) at the bottom of page 21 states:  “While legislation treats those cohabiting the same regardless of their marital status, it is easier to deceive the government if you are not married”.  This statement is false and backwards.  If it is anyone being deceitful, it is the married/coupled persons.  Can someone explain why it would be easier to deceive the government if you are not married (‘ever’ single)?  The issue with false reporting lies with those who are married/coupled, divorced or separated.  They are trying to ‘milk’ the system by falsely reporting their marital status even though the Canada Revenue income tax rules clearly define the parameters of marital status.

False reporting is a crime.  It would be very easy to track deceit by following income tax declaration of marital status and address of residence over several years.  Deceit of married/coupled persons would incrementally increase the monetary value they would receive from the deceit as it costs them less to live as a couple than it does single persons.

It seems married/coupled persons want it all even if they have to lie about it.  So what will they do when their spouse goes to a nursing home or is deceased?  In order to collect the benefits they are entitled to as one spouse living at home and the the other in a nursing home and widowers, they will need to lie again and change their marital status from single to married/coupled or widowed when filing their income taxes.

‘Ever’ singles (never married, no kids) throughout their entire working lives pay same amount of taxes as each individual (with equal income to the single person) reporting income tax in a married/coupled relationship and have supported/subsidized families who use mom/baby hospital care, EI benefits for maternal/paternal leaves, etc.  They are never recognized for their tax support and for using less resources than families.  Since singles have paid supportive taxes throughout their entire working lives, they deserve to live with the same financial dignity and respect as seniors and as married/coupled persons.  As seniors, ‘ever’ singles deserve to have their own space and their own bathroom and not be forced to cohabitate with other persons.

The real financial lives of singles is revealed when a simple math calculation is used for the targeted tax relief where a single senior can now earn $20,360 and a senior couple $40,720 before paying federal income tax.  This so called tax relief for seniors allows federal tax relief for singles equal to $1,697 per month and for senior couples $3,393 per month.  The tax relief for senior singles hardly covers a rent or mortgage payment of $1,200 and $250 for food per month (Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need), but amply covers this amount for a senior couple.  For a couple $1200 for rent or mortgage and $500 for food leaves $1693 (or 50% of $40,000) for other necessities and maybe even a nice little vacation all tax free.

CONCLUSION

It is incredible how in just a few paragraphs a think-tank can undo the hard work that singles have been trying to achieve in seeking financial equality.  Think-tanks and financial gurus continue to practice financial illiteracy on what it truly costs singles to live.   (false-assumptions-four-ways-seniors-singles-lose out) and (financial-gurus-financially-illiterate-about-singles-finances)

Even though the final statement of the report states:  “The GIS is the most effective federal mechanism in the short term for reducing the poverty rate and the impact of poverty on seniors, and it can be targeted at senior singles who need it the most”, there are many shortcomings to this report.

This report is encouraging irresponsible financial behavior.  It is morally, ethically and socially reprehensible in a First world country to say that one cannot save with an income over $100,000 and to promote financial inequality and discrimination of singles.

The Broadbent Institute is supposed to be about ‘a more equal society’, so where is the financial equality?

SOLUTIONS

In order to ensure financial equality between singles (including widowers) and married/coupled persons the following measures need to be taken:

    • change financial formulas so that senior singles receive 70 per cent of whatever is given to married/coupled senior persons as it costs more for singles to live than it does married/coupled persons because of economies of scale
    • financial formulas should be revised to include all senior persons regardless of marital status in one financial formula.  To eliminate financial silos that benefit married/coupled persons most, delete benefits already given to married/coupled persons such as pension splitting (benefits the rich most) so that there is a level financial playing field for all regardless of marital status. (It is understood that it is expensive to raise children and  benefits given for children should last for first twenty years of the life of the child.  However, beyond the twenty years of the children, any other benefits given to married/coupled persons should be deleted or should also be given equally to singles at rate of 70 per cent)
    • create a side-by-side list of all possible benefits under categories of married/coupled, widowed and single and analyze the total value of benefits in each category (see table above).  Financial formulas should be created equally for all categories, not just the married/coupled and widowed.
    • delete allowance benefit that has been ruled to be discriminatory by the courts
    • education, education and more education on financial literacy for singles.  Think tanks, financial gurus and married/coupled people need to educate themselves on what it really costs singles to live.

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

 

 

FALSE ASSUMPTIONS- ‘FOUR WAYS SINGLE SENIORS LOSE OUT’

Posted on by
4

FALSE ASSUMPTIONS OF ARTICLE ‘FOUR WAYS SINGLE SENIORS LOSE OUT’

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

(On searching internet a few days ago this article was found – ‘Four ways single seniors lose out’ by Ted Rechtshaffen, Financial Post October 13, 2012. While the intentions of the article are great, the assumptions and categorization of singles is false.)

In his October 13, 2012 article Ted Rechtshaffen (four-ways-single-seniors-lose-out) talks about four ways that single seniors financially lose out. Portions of the article are outlined in part here (full article is available online):

Rechtshaffen states:

“Being part of a couple in old age has so many tax advantages that losing a spouse through divorce or death can be very costly. Given the fact that so many more single seniors are female, this unfairness is almost an added tax on women. Becoming single in old age could cost you tens of thousands of dollars through no fault of your own. The current tax and pension system in Canada is significantly tilted to benefit couples over singles once you are age 65 or more….

Here are four ways that single seniors lose out:

1. There is no one to split income with. Since the rules changed to allow for income splitting of almost all income for those aged 65 or older, it has meaningfully lowered tax rates for some…If you are single, you are stuck with the higher tax bill.

2. CPP (Canadian Pension Plan) haircut… If one passes away, the government doesn’t pay out more than the maximum for CPP to the surviving spouse. They will top up someone’s CPP if it is below the maximum, but in this case, they simply lose out almost $12,000 a year.

3. RSP/RIF (Retirement Savings Plan/Retirement Income Fund) gets folded into one account. This becomes important as you get older and a larger amount of money is withdrawn by a single person each year — and taxed on income…her tax bill will be much larger… than the combined tax bill the year before, even though they have essentially the same assets, and roughly the same income is withdrawn.

4. Old Age Security (OAS). The married couple with $50,000 of income each, both qualify for full Old Age Security —… If the husband passes away, you lose his OAS, about $6,500. On top of that, in the example in #3, the wife now has a minimum RIF income…and combined with CPP and any other income, she is now getting OAS clawed back.

The clawback starts at $69,562, and the OAS declines by 15¢ for every $1 of income beyond $69,562. If we assume that the widow now has an income of $80,000, her OAS will be cut to $414.50 a month or another $1,500 annual hit simply because she is now single. In total, almost $8,000 of Old Age Security has now disappeared. As you can see, a couple’s net after-tax income can drop as much as $25,000 after one becomes single.

On the other side, there is no question that expenses will decline being one person instead of two, but the expenses don’t drop in half. We usually see a decline of about 15% to 30%, because items like housing and utilities usually don’t change much, and many other expenses only see small declines.

In one analysis our company did comparing the ultimate estate size of a couple who both pass away at age 90, as compared to one where one of them passes away at age 70 and the other lives to 90, the estate size was over $500,000 larger when both lived to age 90 – even with higher expenses.

So the question becomes, what can you do about this?

I have three suggestions:

1. Write a letter to your MP along with this article, and demand that the tax system be made more fair for single seniors. You may also want to send a letter to Status of Women Minister…as this issue clearly affects women more than men.

2. Look at having permanent life insurance on both members of a couple to compensate for the gaps. Many people have life insurance that they drop after a certain age. The life insurance option certainly isn’t a necessity, but can be a solution that provides a better return on investment than many alternatives and covers off this gap well. If you have sufficient wealth that you will be leaving a meaningful estate anyway, this usually will grow the overall estate value as compared to not having the insurance — and not hurt your standard of living in any way.

3. Consider a common law relationship for tax purposes. I am only half joking. If two single seniors get together and write a pre-nuptial agreement to protect assets in the case of a separation or death, you can both benefit from the tax savings.

Ultimately, the status quo is simply unfair to single seniors, and that needs to change.”

Ted Rechtshaffen is president and wealth advisor at TriDelta Financial, a boutique wealth management and planning firm. www.tridelta.ca

The first thing that is so wrong with this article is the definition of single versus married/partnered in marital status. The senior persons mentioned in this article are not single. According to Statistics Canada definitions, they are widowed or divorced/separated (after age 65). Persons who are true and ever singles have none of the financial benefits/losses mentioned in this article. And if persons are divorced/separated, especially at an early stage of their marriage, they also do not have many of the benefits/losses mentioned here. (The earlier the divorce/separation in life, the greater is the loss of benefits that married/coupled persons enjoy).

  1. Being part of a couple in old age has so many tax advantages…How true!
  2. The current tax and pension system in Canada is significantly tilted to benefit couples over singles once you are age 65 or more….This statement is not completely true. The system is even more unfair for singles who are true (‘ever’) singles, not widows. Singles who are true singles have been excluded from the discussion.
  3. Benefits – Article correctly states that pension splitting, CPP, RSP/RIF and OAS are benefits to married people because the couple receives these benefits times two and is able to pension split, but widowed persons have less of these benefits. To this, true singles and early divorced/separated persons ask the question, “so what”? If widowed persons are now so called ‘single’ they should have to live same standard of living, not better than, true singles and early divorced/separated persons.
  4. Losses – Losses are correctly stated, however, true (‘ever’) singles and early divorced/separated persons have a hard time understanding why this is a hardship. Widowers are now ‘single’ so why can’t they live the same lifestyle as true singles and early divorced/separated persons?
  5. Higher tax bill – Why is this a problem? Widowed persons are now on more equal playing field to true single and early divorced/separated persons.
  6. Clawback – Again why is this a problem? True singles and early divorced/separated persons enjoy none of these benefits. Also, many true (ever) singles and early divorced/separated Canadian persons do not have the luxury of a $70,000 income.

Estate size $500,000 less
– Just more proof that married/coupled persons want it all and want more, more and more from the time of marriage until the death of their spouse/partner and even after the death of their spouse/partner.  In article ‘The Added Price of Single Life?’ by Bella Depaulo (belladepaulo) talks about a A British study that showed  true singles lose equivalent of $380,000 USA over a lifetime to married persons, so what is the problem with losing $500,000? Another good article is ‘The high price of being single in America’ theatlantic.com.

The article then goes on to make these enlightening points:

“There is no question that expenses will decline being one person instead of two, but the expenses don’t drop in half. We usually see a decline of about 15% to 30%, because items like housing and utilities usually don’t change much, and many other expenses only see small declines“.

It would be exceedingly wonderful if government, businesses, society and families (married/partnered) would recognize this fact for true singles and early divorced/separated persons instead of telling them “it must be their lifestyle” that is making them poor. Fifteen to 30 percent decline? Wow, singles would love these percentages to also be used for them especially since 60 to 70% income of married or partnered persons is often used (i.e. MoneySense articles). If only true singles and early divorced persons could say they should have the same benefits as widowed persons, that is, 70 to 85% income of married or partnered persons.

Unfair to single seniors?  The  most unfairness is to true singles and divorced/separated persons, not widows.

Regarding the suggestions that are made:

  1. “Write your MP and demand that tax system be made more fair for single seniors”. The article refers only to married/coupled and divorced/separated seniors after the age of 65. It dis criminates by exclusion against true singles and early divorced/separated persons.
  • “Look at having permanent life insurance on both members of a couple to compensate for the gaps”. This is a great idea. The author of this blog has long thought this would be a solution to providing benefits to survivors once spouses have died and they would actually be paying for those benefits through premiums. At the present time, survivors are getting marital manna benefits, but then are asking for more as this article suggests. They are also getting survivors benefits from pension plans and paying very little for these benefits. An example is a pension plan where only $100 is deducted each month from living spouse for pension benefits in the thousand dollar range. Deduction of $100 per month or $1200 per year does not pay for survivor pension that is two-thirds of full pension of the spouse. Life insurance plans at present time do not extend to 90 years of age without excessive premiums. To stop all the marital manna benefits that survivors get, life insurance plans need to be extended to 90 years of age, and spouses need to pay premiums for entire life. Another critical thinking, outside the box idea is to eliminate marital manna benefits and make permanent term life insurance plans compulsory, just like house and car insurance, so that married/coupled persons would actually pay for the benefits they receive. This methodology would allow true singles and early divorced/separated persons to be on more level financial playing field to married/coupled persons since generally true singles do not need life insurance. A longer term for collecting premiums should help to offset the costs of the premiums that will be paid out. Permanent life insurance would ease burden that married/partnered benefits place on government programs. There also would then be more monies to bring government programs for true singles and early divorced/separated persons to have same standard of living as married/coupled and widowed persons.
  • Consider a common law relationship for tax purposes. He says he is only half kidding. Really? According to Canada Revenue Agency rules this is not legal. Ever singles and divorced/separated persons cannot just shack up with someone for tax purposes. More true singles and early divorced/separated persons would be doing this if they could.

Lessons learned

  1. Writers who wish to write about the financial affairs of singles should use correct definitions for singles. The persons in this article were not true singles. In other words, correctly identify who your audience is.
  2. Writers of financial institutions who wish to write about the financial affair of singles should include all singles in their discussions. To do anything less is discriminatory and disrespectful to singles who truly are single.
  3. By all means vote and contact your Members of Parliament, but insist that true singles and early divorced/separated persons (senior and otherwise) be included in financial discussions and formulas equal to and at the same level as widows and middle class families. (Seventy to 85% income of married/coupled persons would be wonderful).

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

Visitor questions regarding blog.  This is a WordPress blog designed by a hired individual.