Category Archives: financial fairness

COLLATERAL DAMAGE AND FUTURE CONSEQUENCES OF POLITICAL FINANCIAL FORMULAS

Posted on by
Reply

COLLATERAL DAMAGE AND FUTURE CONSEQUENCES OF POLITICAL FINANCIAL FORMULAS

(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.)

In the last post of October, 2018 the Alberta Conservative proposal of a teen entry level wage was discussed.  This post discusses the collateral damage or unintended consequences such an action could have on future financial lives of teens.

Every action taken can have consequences reaching far into the future.  An example is the teen entry level wage suggested by Alberta Conservative candidates.  The collateral damage and consequences of this action may impact financial programs such as Employment Insurance in the short term and Canada Pension Plan benefits for those teens forty or fifty years into the future.

CPP is a government defined benefit plan whose benefits are based on contributions deducted based on wage levels.  Employees are required to work forty full time years to receive full CPP benefits. If entry level wage up to 21 years or first five years of employment is implemented this will affect the amount of CPP benefits received for those five years, maybe even as high as 10% lost in CPP benefits (five out of forty employed years and CPP benefits for twenty years from age 65 to 85).  Even if entry level wage up to 21 years was implemented for a number of years and then repealed because of its discriminatory nature, the CPP benefits for this minority group (and only for this group) will be affected forever if CPP benefits are not fully restored for those years.

Approximately 520,000 Albertans and 4.5 million Canadians were adolescents and young adults aged 15 to 24.  If the teen entry level wage is implemented only in in Alberta Conservatives will be forcing their Alberta teen constituents to earn less wages and CPP benefits than teens in all other Canadian provinces and territories.  How can Alberta Conservatives see this as morally and ethically fair?

Conservative goals on labour policies (Jason Kenney’s teen entry wage, Doug Ford’s broken promise on basic income pilot project, Trump’s tax cut for the wealthy) seem to try to circumvent and subvert in any way possible a decent minimum wage, a basic wage or living wage without concomitant tax loophole reductions for the wealthy and without evaluating the full consequences of those actions now and in the future.

It is time for Conservatives to use forward thinking instead of narrow mindedness in problem solving related to labour.  If small businesses are having difficulties then solve the small business problems instead of targeting labourers.

Jason Kenney needs to provide full details on the proposed teen wage reduction so voters can make informed choices.

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

TEENAGE ENTRY LEVEL WAGE BELOW MINIMUM WAGE EQUALS BLATANT DISCRIMINATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE FAILURE

Posted on by
2

TEENAGE ENTRY LEVEL WAGE BELOW MINIMUM WAGE EQUALS BLATANT DISCRIMINATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE FAILURE

(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.)

In preparation for the 2019 provincial election certain provincial Conservative candidates once again are proposing economic changes that target the most vulnerable – teenage entry level wage below minimum wage and flat taxes (tax-system).

Alberta Minimum Wage Profile (April 2017 – March, 2018) ‘Alberta Analysis (wage-profile)- At 28.8%, the 15 to 19 year old group  remained the largest group of minimum wage earners in Alberta, and the 20 to 24 year old group was the second largest at 20.5%.  Over one quarter or 28.3% of Alberta minimum wage earners were students’.

Fact check:

    • Some teens work to help support their families.
    • Some teens have already left home and are trying to establish themselves as hard working independent, self sufficient  and responsible individuals.
    • Some teens are emancipated minors who leave their families because of abuse and untenable living conditions at home.
    • Some unattached (and married) individuals are living at home because they can’t afford Alberta housing prices.  From the report:   During the current reference period, 39.5% of minimum wage earners were living with their parents.’
    • Households with children receive Canada Child Benefits, unattached individuals do not.
    • It costs more for unattached individuals (independent teens) to live than married without children (Market Basket Measure).  If one person (unattached) household has a value of 1.0, the value for a two person (married) household is 1.4, not 2.0.
    • Discrimination based on age is a violation of human rights.

Conservatives have referred to the Australian model for teenage entry level wages. Australia Minimum Wage Reduction for Teens in 2018 (based on $18.93 minimum wage):

  • <16 years 36.8% or $6.97
  • 16 years 47.3% or $8.95
  • 17 years 57.8% or $10.94
  • 18 years 68.3% or $12.93
  • 19 years 82.5% or $15.61
  • 20 years 97.7% or $18.49

Living wage Calgary is over $18 ($36,000/yr.) and very few living wages in Canada are below $15.00.  Alberta minimum wage of $15 ($30,000/yr.) is below the living wage, and now Conservatives want to decrease the minimum wage, for example if based on Australian model, an 18 year old to approx. 70% or $10.50/hr. ($21,000/yr.)?

It is difficult to draw statistics on specific youth ages, but from several sources and from Statistics Canada Census Profile 2016, statistics show approximate Alberta population age 15 – 19 to be 240,035, age 20 to 24 to be 261,830.  Approximately 13% to 15% of total Alberta employees are from age group 15 to 24. Do Conservatives really want to target the minority group of 13 to 15%?

In 2011 (profile-youth) the Services-Producing sector in Alberta comprised 77.9% of all youth employment.  In 2011, Alberta youth accounted for 37.7% of those employed in the Accommodation and Food Services industry.  The average hourly wage paid to youth was $9.57 less than the average hourly wage paid to all Albertans. Approximately 63% age 15 – 24 are full  time employees. In 2011 average hourly wage for all Albertans was $25.47 and for age 15-24 $15.90.

Premise that age 21 before 100% wage takes effect or five years to become skilled at a job is just plain discriminatory, a violation of human rights and a social justice failure.  At 18 years of age, these persons are adults, they can vote, and many have left home to work and become independent persons. Their parents no longer receive Canada Child Benefits.

Why would parents support a policy that is discriminatory?

If problems lie with small business then solve the small business problem instead of targeting vulnerable minorities to bear the brunt of failures of business.   Apparently politicians, businesses can’t see that they will pay one way or another-more welfare and food banks at one end and ability to live decent respectful lives at the other.

Jason Kenney needs to reveal his plan for teen minimum wage reduction in its entirety so voters can make informed choices on their candidates.

CONCLUSION

What is needed in this democratic country are centre left and right parties for balance and to challenge each other so right and fair decisions are made.  What is not needed are far right Conservatives (Jason Kenney – teen minimum wage reduction and flat taxes, Doug Ford who broke his promise by cancelling Ontario Liberal’s basic income pilot project, and Trump’s economic policies making the rich even richer).

Proper budgeting implies that if there is a problem with deficits, taxes should not be cut without reducing the “fat” or excesses.  Conservatives are also once again proposing bringing back the flat tax without cutting loopholes for the wealthy. Why is it that they always target the vulnerable, cut the revenue side by cutting taxes, but never cut regressive tax expenditures or loopholes for the wealthy?

Parkland Institute (things_to_know_about_a_15_minimum_wage_in_alberta) makes the following points:

  • Consumer spending power has more impact on employment than raising the minimum wage.

  • Raising the minimum wage by meaningful amounts helps put a dent in increasing income inequality.

  • Income inequality increases health care costs and slows economic growth.

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

INCOME SPRINKLING PROMOTES FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLE MARITAL STATUS ENTREPRENEURS

Posted on by
2

INCOME SPRINKLING PROMOTES FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLE MARITAL STATUS ENTREPRENEURS

(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.)

Opening statement:  Here we go again, yet another financial program that financially discriminates against singles.  Most singles, especially those who are not entrepreneurs, would not be aware that married entrepreneurs with and without children are able to do this type of tax manipulation.  The article “What the new ‘income sprinkling’ rules mean for tax planning” has been reproduced in its entirety to educate the reader on what ‘income sprinkling’ is all about.  “Income Sprinkling’ has been added as an example to Marital Manna Benefits and Marital Privileging section outlined in the feature post of this blog SIX REASONS WHY MARRIED/COUPLED PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO ACHIEVE MORE FINANCIAL POWER (WEALTH) THAN SINGLES (financial-power)

WHAT IS INCOME SPRINKLING?

“What the new ‘income sprinkling’ rules mean for tax planning” by Jamie Golombek (new-income-sprinkling-rules)

Small business owners, including incorporated professionals such as doctors, lawyers, accountants and others, will likely face a higher tax bill in the years ahead as a result of (Liberal) Finance Minister announcement this week targeting several common, and until now, perfectly legal, tax strategies used in conjunction with private corporations.

The strategies under attack can be categorized into three main areas: income sprinkling, earning passive investment income in a corporation and converting a corporation’s ordinary income into tax-preferred capital gains.

Among these changes, it’s the first one — income sprinkling — which is perhaps deemed the most offensive of the three and the one that will likely have the broadest financial impact on small business owners and incorporated professionals.

While there are various legal and government-sanctioned forms of income splitting, the most common one being the splitting of pension income or RRIF withdrawals (after age 65) with a spouse or partner, the Finance Minister chose the term “income sprinkling” rather than income splitting to describe how some families use private corporations to sprinkle income among family members. In a typical example, dividends that would have been received by the primary owner/manager of the private corporation, say, mom or dad, would instead be paid to the spouse, partner or kids of the primary shareholder, who are often in lower tax brackets than the primary owner/manager and thus the family’s total tax bill would be reduced.

This result stems from the fact that Canada taxes us on an individual basis, rather than as a family unit and imposes progressively higher tax rates on each individual, such that the higher your personal income, the higher your rate of tax. Canada also allows each individual a basic personal amount (equal to $11,635 in 2017) which effectively allows every Canadian to receive at least the first $11,635 tax-free.

Private corporations can pay dividends to family members who, if they have no other income, can use their basic personal amounts to shield such income from tax. For example, in Ontario, an individual with no other source of income could receive about $51,000 in eligible dividends without paying a cent of federal or provincial tax. In many corporate structures, it’s typical for the common shares to held by a family trust in which the spouse and the kids of the owner/manager are the beneficiaries and the trustee has discretion as to which beneficiary receives dividends each year and how much each receives.

As the government noted in its discussion document, “The income distributed to the family member may exceed what would have been expected, having regard to the family member’s labour and capital contributions to the business, in arrangements involving arm’s-length investors.”

Of course not all private corporations are engaged in income sprinkling as it typically only provides meaningful benefits when the family member that receives the “sprinkled” income is either in a lower tax bracket than the owner/manager or has tax deductions or credits, including the basic personal amount or tuition carryforwards, which otherwise would go unused.

In addition, the tax savings achieved through an income sprinkling plan must be material enough to justify both the initial and ongoing transaction costs associated with most income sprinkling arrangements, which often involve the setup and maintenance of a discretionary family trust and in some cases, multiple classes of shares.

When it comes to income sprinkling of salary income, the current tax rules are quite strict in that the Income Tax Act only permits “reasonable” amounts to be deducted from the corporation’s income when salary or management fees are paid to employees, including family members. This rule is meant to prevent a parent who owns a corporation from paying his spouse or child an annual salary when he or she doesn’t actually perform any work or provide services to the business.

When it comes to dividends, however, there is no reasonableness test in that anyone who owns share of the corporation may receive dividends. There is, however, a special tax known as the “kiddie tax” which came into place in 1999, to prevent income splitting with minor children (i.e. kids under the age of 18). Prior to this tax, known formally as “tax on split income” (TOSI), it was quite common for private companies to pay tens of thousands of dollars in dividends to toddlers, which would effectively be received tax-free as the kids would use their basic personal amount to shelter this income from tax.

The TOSI regime killed this planning nearly two decades ago by subjecting dividends from private company shares paid to minor kids to top, highest-rate taxation and denying the use of personal tax credits (other than the dividend tax credit) to shelter such amounts.

However, as the government noted, the current TOSI rules do not fully respond to income sprinkling involving adult family members. In its paper, the government took a close look at the age of individuals who reported non-eligible dividends on their tax returns. (Non-eligible dividends are generally dividends paid on private company shares from income eligible for the small business rate.) The government found that in each year reviewed, the amount of non-eligible dividends reported by those aged 18-21 exceeded both the amounts earned by the 22-25 and 26-29 age groups. As the government wrote, “this anomaly in the distribution suggests the presence of dividend sprinkling, because the tax benefits of income sprinkling are higher, on average, when adult children of high-income filers are younger and have lower income.”

As a result, this week the government announced proposed changes, to be effective in 2018, to extend the TOSI to certain adult individuals. Under the proposed new rules, an adult family member will be expected to contribute to the business, either in labour or capital, in order to be exempt from the TOSI on income received. In other words, the amount received by such adult family members must be “reasonable.” There is a stricter test for 18-24 year olds. In a nutshell, if the amount isn’t reasonable, then a top rate of tax will apply, putting an end to current strategy of dividend sprinkling among non-involved family members.

OPINION LETTER SUBMITTED BY AUTHOR TO MAJOR LOCAL NEWSPAPER – NOT PUBLISHED

Tax fairness proposals always stir up hornet nests for tax manipulators.

Fact check:  married or partnered persons with and without children have financial power to gift money to spousal RRSP, loan money to spouse at CRA 1% rate, contribute to and compound RRSP and TFSAs times two and pension split while singles never married or partnered, no kids get nothing comparable.  Plus incorporated married/partnered entrepreneurs can ‘income sprinkle’ to avoid taxes.

Journalists like the one who published “Big government has small business in its sights” malign unions, but incorporated business persons may have spouses who are union employees.  Union employees cannot tax manipulate.

Since singles in their financial circle are basically financially responsible to themselves (no spouse, no children),‘Income sprinkling’ is of likely of little benefit to single marital status entrepreneurs so they will pay more tax.  Tax fairness needs to be ensured regardless of marital status and how income is earned.

COMMENTS

Financial discrimination example of singles before retirement – Income sprinkling as outlined above.  Excerpt from above article states:  ‘The government found that in each year reviewed, the amount of non-eligible dividends reported by those aged 18-21 exceeded both the amounts earned by the 22-25 and 26-29 age groups. As the government wrote, “this anomaly in the distribution suggests the presence of dividend sprinkling, because the tax benefits of income sprinkling are higher, on average, when adult children of high-income filers are younger and have lower income.” ‘

Financial discrimination example of singles after retirement – Various legal and government-sanctioned forms of income splitting, the most common one being the splitting of pension income (family-tax-credits) or RRIF withdrawals (after age 65) with a spouse or partner leave singles (never married, no children and divorced) out of the financial equation.

When governments regardless of political party bring in unfair tax programs, and then later try to eliminate or change them to promote financial fairness, this is usually meant by profound resistance especially by those who benefit most from the programs (most likely wealthy since they benefit most from tax manipulation).

It is also interesting to note the various comments columnists and opinion writers have submitted on income sprinkling issue.  One columnist went so far as to say that this should be taken on as a feminist issue since the spouse, more likely to be female, supports their partner.  This author responded to the columnist by letter stating that if she wants to play the feminist card, then singles would like to play the ‘singlism’ card, since singles likely do not benefit at all from ‘income sprinkling’.

It is the opinion of this author the Finance Minister in this case was actually doing the right thing by levelling the financial playing field for ‘income sprinkling’.  The final outcome of this financial policy is yet to be determined.

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

WHAT IS THE POINT OF POLITICS AND POLITICIANS IN FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES?

Posted on by
1

WHAT IS THE POINT OF POLITICS AND POLITICIANS IN FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES?

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

One wonders what is the point of politics and politicians when there is such gross financial discrimination (along with violation of human rights) of singles.

One online review describes the purpose of government and politics as follows:

The purpose of politics is to enable the members of a society to collectively achieve important human goals they cannot otherwise achieve individually. Through negotiation, debate, legislation and other political structures, politics procures safety, order and general welfare within the state. The question of the precise ends of politics is one of the greatest, and most inconclusive, in philosophy, as manifested by the divisive, heated debates among political parties.

Government is the regulation of human activity, and politics consists of the processes by which a society decides the nature and extent of that regulation. There are many theories concerning the proper role of politics and what aspects of human life should be politicized.

Politics is often involved in prescribing the rules that govern interhuman relationships. It determines laws regarding marriage, parenting, businesses and contracts. It creates laws regulating educational institutions and civil associations. Money always plays a big role in politics. Much time goes into deciding where public money will come from and how resources will be spent.

The activities of government, politics and politicians, however, can go very wrong especially when certain members of a population are underserved or not served at all.  An example of this is the cultural genocide of indigenous persons and violation of rights of targeted groups such as non-white persons (example:  In USA implementation of voter ID cards that would make it harder for the poor to vote).

This blog has attempted to show financial discrimination of singles.  In a financial world where parents and children rule, singles are an invisible minority.  This blog has also described how singles are financially excluded in a political world where ‘selective’ social democracy rules (singles).  The last decade has been especially financially unkind to singles in which married or coupled persons and parents with children have received the most benefits from the time they are married until the time they are seniors and then widowed (decades).

Politicians and government, both in Canada and the USA, continue to leave singles out of their discussions.  Politicians refer mostly to the middle class and families.  Singles or individuals are not included in the definition of family.  Benefits continue to be targeted more towards families, children, and the middle class, rather than singles and the poor.

Some of the reasons for the financial discrimination of singles are voter entitlements and political parties implementing programs strictly for increasing number of votes.  How decisions for these benefits are arrived at are, indeed, a puzzlement as the premises behind these benefits would never work at a business budget level or a family budget level.

Problems with government budgets and formulas include:

    1. Redistributing monies so that benefits are given to one group (families with children) while another group(singles) is forced to pay for them.
    2. No continuity of benefits from one year to another or from one political party to another.  Benefits may be implemented in one year only to be eliminated in the following year.  Over the years, this may result in one group receiving some benefits, while other groups are never able to receive any of the benefits because of the many changes over the years.
    3. There often appears to be no financial expert consultation on the financial impact or efficacy of the implemented benefits.  An example is the ability of family units with children to receive benefits even though they may be quite wealthy and  not working. The reason for this is that programs have been implemented without taking into account the net worth and assets of the groups receiving the benefits.  As a result of the benefits, these groups may become even wealthier.
    4. Financial formulas are created in isolation (federal separate from provincial).  This creates scenarios where benefits upon benefits upon benefits are doled out allowing some groups to achieve considerable incomes levels that they did not have before receiving the benefits.
    5. There appears to be no financial accountability to ensure financial fairness for all citizens.

If businesses or families and  individuals operated their budgets in this manner where the money cannot be followed, they probably would be considered by financial analysts to be poorly run, face audits from the Canada Revenue Agency and possibly even become bankrupt.

CONCLUSION

So, again the question must be asked:  What is the point of politics and politicians when programs are implemented that defy the financial intelligence of basic math, budgeting and common sense financial principles resulting in financial discrimination of certain groups like singles?

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

CANADA CHILD BENEFIT PROGRAM SHOWS FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION AT ITS BEST

Posted on by
2

CANADA CHILD BENEFIT PROGRAM SHOWS FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION AT ITS BEST

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

(boutique-tax-credits-pushing-singles-into-poverty)

From CBC News-”New Canada Child Benefit program payments” July 20, 2016 (cbc) – Analysis of new Liberal Canada Child Benefit program and old Conservative UCCB program

The old Universal Child Care Benefit or UCCB (Conservative) provided $160 per child per month for children under six and $60 per month for children aged six to 17. That money was paid out to families regardless of income level.  The Conservative philosophy was that there should be some component of assistance for families that was universal.  However, this benefit was to be included as income and required payment of taxes.

Conservative universal approach could be viewed as all families should receive some component of assistance.  Just because they make a lot of money they should not be penalized, they should not be losing out and not getting any government benefits,  (Note: only for families, ever singles don’t matter).

The new Liberal program Canada Child Benefit (CCB) begins this month and combines the CCTB and UCCB into one payment that is entirely income tested up to $190,000 of income. The new payment is also tax-free making it more expensive than the UCCB.   Less than $30,000 in net annual household income generates benefit $6,500 for each child under six and $5,400 for children aged six through 17 tax free. 300,000 fewer children would live in poverty in 2016-17 compared with 2014-15.  The Liberals also reduced the tax rate from 22.5 per cent to 20 per cent for middle-class Canadians earning between $44,700 and $89,401 a year.  The Liberal (Trudeau) approach is that these benefits should be based on income testing.  Wealthier families can carry more of the load…they don’t need additional government handouts.

Since provinces also provide some child benefits, there was concern that provinces would clawback CCB from children on social assistance.  So far eight provinces has indicated they will not clawback CCB.

Illustration provided shows Ava Williams as a Toronto social worker with a net income of about $30,000, who lives in community housing. As a single mother of four children between the ages of six and 17, she says the new program will boost her old annual federal benefit payment by about $6,000 per year with added benefit of the new payment being tax free.  Something does not add up for the totals given..  One wonders if she means an additional $6,000 to what she received in 2015.  Assuming her net income is under $30,000 and her children all under the age of 18, it appears she will receive somewhere between $21,000 and $26,000 in child benefits, for a total net income between $51,000 and $56,000 all tax free.  This is in additional to subsidized housing and other possible federal and provincial benefits such as GST/HST credits with no clawback of the benefits..

An example of additional benefits received on a provincial basis with no clawback is Alberta.  In Alberta the non taxable child benefits are applied to working families with children under 18 and a net income starting at $25,500 with phasing out up to less than $41,220 per year.  Total annual maximum benefits for one child could be up $1,863, two children $3,107, three children $4,073, and four children $4,762.  Ava if she lived in Alberta with four children could receive total tax free federal and provincial child benefits of approximately $55,762 plus subsidized housing ($30,000 net income $21,000 CCB and $4,762 Alberta child credits). (There is no clarification on her marital status, which should not matter, but many readers wanted to know where the father was).

SYNOPSIS OF APPROXIMATELY 2500 READER COMMENTS FROM TWO NEWS ARTICLES

Approximately 2500 reader comments from two news articles were reviewed.(not number of readers, as some some readers comment many times)  The majority of comments were classified into the following major categories:

-Negative comments (most were negative)

-Not happy with amounts received between new Liberal and old Conservative benefits or  it is not enough

-Positive comments (very few)

-Bashing of political parties (Liberals versus Conservatives)

-Worried about future debt generated by benefits

-Many comments bashing Ava and where is the father of these children

-Other programs would be more beneficial than the child benefit program

-Program will be abused

-Benefits given for children but seniors and disabled receive much less

-Singles feel they have been left out of process and families of all types bash singles

-Divorce and death of one parent as well as other causes have impact on poverty

-Child benefits not only on federal level, but also provincial level

-In addition to benefits, should also be teaching budgeting and financial responsibility

-Immigrants

-Education

-Advantages of Child Benefits

-Benefit programs – have lots of other programs in addition to child benefit

-Eighteen years a long time for benefits

-Misconceptions about what is benefit versus welfare

-In addition to benefits, income taxes also cut for middle class

-Net worth and assets

Because of the length of the post, only issues regarding ‘Singles’ and ‘Net Worth and Assets’ will be discussed here.  Other categories will appear at the end of the post for those who wish to review all other categories in their entirety.

Reader comments regarding SINGLES

Single response-We’re sending cheques to families with household incomes up to $190,000/year yet there’s nothing for the 30% of single female seniors living in poverty. There’s a number of programs for single female seniors. I’m sure though that you and I would agree that it’s not enough.

Reader response-For all you single people out there, if you want to get tax free money , you better get married and start having kids because that is the only way you will get a tax shelter.

Single response – Nobody ever wants to help single people with no kids. Ever occur to you that I have no kids because I am responsible and do not want to bring kids into a life of poverty?

Reader response –  According to the left if you are single and no kids you need no help. You are well off and should pay more taxes.

Reader response -or you are selfish and don’t want to spend money on anyone but yourself.

Reader response – Don’t worry, that ‘right person’ is out there somewhere.

Reader Response -Yet other people’s kids will be the ones to take care of you when you are elderly. Don’t you think that’s worth a little bit of investment?

Single response – If the govt had money to throw away they could have reduced the tax rate for all of us, not just those who think they are poor because they gave birth to 4 kids.. Single people get NOTHING, just pay up more.

Reader response – We don’t have another human depending on us for life and those who have taken that responsibility deserve the help managing the full time obligation.

Reader response – I doubt that that is what he meant at all. A sense of responsibility is not selfishness.  Having kids is one of the most important things you’ll ever do. Granted, you cannot anticipate every life outcome, but generally speaking a responsible adult has an idea of their finances, and where they expect their finances to be in future. Most adults can actually budget their grocery store purchases – I believe they can budget the price of a child.   And having babies is not a right. Nobody should be under any obligation to financially support a stranger’s kids.

Reader response – You should be asking yourself why you need help if you’re single with no kids.

Reader response -And second, it’s not to say that single people with no kids can’t or shouldn’t receive support, it’s just that why would you need support for being single or having no kids? If you’re also elderly, or disabled, sick or unemployed sure, but being single and having no kids isn’t making it harder for us to live reasonably.

Single response – Hey, maybe all the poor single people – the disabled, etc., will simply die off and make room for all the government-supported kids.

Single response – as a childless middle aged man I am sick of paying for everybody’s kids, especially the Harper garbage boutique tax credits for hockey and ballet school.

Reader response – More likely you don’t get along with women very well or can’t find someone that will have your kid. Ever occur to you that poor kids may not necessarily have been born that way and that layoffs and economical hits create poor kids? That divorce also creates poor kids. Death of a spouse creates poor kids. You can be a millionaire and bring kids into the world and then have your investments tank the next day and you’re poor.

Reader response – If you are single your costs are much, much lower than if you have kids. Your contribution to the economy is also lower. When I go out to dinner my contribution is 5 times what a single person will bring to a restaurant but I still only need one table. This creates jobs as well. My kids go to swimming lessons (jobs and economic boost), they take the bus (jobs and economic boost), eat food and wear clothes and you name it. Grow up.

Reader Response – Single people do not pay more in taxes, that is a lie.

Single response – they certainly don’t get all the freebies (singles)

Reader response – I don’t think it’s that single people with no kids expect support, it’s simply that they perhaps don’t understand why people with kids should get rewarded with their tax money for having babies.

Reader response– Everyone at some point has paid taxes, not just single people. To say that only “single” taxpayers are funding tax benefit programs is hogwash.

Single response–Single and no kids myself, in my early 50s, barely able to keep a roof over my head even with a full-time job and living frugally. Where’s *my* handout/monthly allowance from the gov’t?

ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS REGARDING SINGLES

It is clear that families with children (and even some singles) are financially illiterate and have no understanding of what it costs a single person to live.  Living Wage for Guelph and Wellington (2013 living wage of $15.95 per hour), a bare bones program to get low income and working poor families and singles off the street, allows a calculated living wage income for single person of $25,099 with no vehicle, food $279, transit and taxi $221 (includes one meal eating out per month).  (In 2015, the living wage for Guelph and Wellington has been set at $16.50 per hour). Note, this is not Vancouver, Toronto or Calgary where living costs are much higher.

–Singles get no benefits except in abject poverty.  In both Liberal and Conservative programs, families with children (including single parents) get the benefits while ever singles and divorced persons without children get nothing.

–Singles pay more.  Yes, ‘singles pay more taxes’ is a false statement.  Truth is that singles, person to person, pay same taxes, but get less benefits.  From the time they are married until one spouse is deceased, married or coupled families with children will likely have received shower, wedding, baby gifts, possibly maternity/paternity leave benefits, child benefits times number of children, TFSA benefits times two, reduced taxes, pension-splitting,  possible survivor pension benefits, and then want to retire before age 65.  In certain cases some of these families will not have paid a full year of taxes.  Single parents will receive child benefits and possible other benefits as well.  When all the benefits that families with children receive are taken into consideration, ever singles and early divorced persons with no children do pay more.

-There is a the perception by families that a reason to have children is that they will take care of future generations.  Financial responsibility implies that everyone including families should be financially paying for and taking care of themselves.  Future generations do not deserve to have heavy tax burdens placed on them to finance this generation and future generations of parents and children.  Likewise, financial responsibility implies that children do not deserve huge inheritances, while singles have a much more difficult time achieving same standard of living and saving for retirement as families with children.

Reader Comments regarding NET WORTH AND ASSETS

Comment-Liberals are so dumb that they don’t even know that the measure of true wealth is NOT income but net worth.  Are they so stupid to think that a lot of your neighbors, who declare zero income (and I know a lot of them) but can afford Jaguars and Bentleys and multi-million dollar homes really are poor? My wife and I are middle class folks, who live in a modest townhouse in Vancouver who won’t qualify for this now because we “make” too much. Sorry, Justin Trudeau, but 150k a year in Vancouver won’t get you very far.

Comment-if you only make $30,000.00 a year, maybe stop after the second child. Kids are expensive.  “According to MoneySense.ca, the average cost of raising a child to age 18 is a whopping $243,660. Break down that number, and that’s $12,825 per child, per year — or $1,070 per month. And that’s before you send them off to university.”

Comment – Take my numbers for example:   Property tax in Oakville Ontario is very high. I live in a 3000 sq/ft house on a tiny 90×90 lot and property tax is $12,000 a year.  Food cost for a family of 3 is about $15,000 a year, Utilities is $9000, Gas/Car/Insurance (2 cars) is $13000, Clothing/Phone/Living Expenses $8000.  I am only listing off the big expenses. Not including a lot of the little things. That comes to $57,000 a year. Hardly enough to live.

Reader Response to above-That sounds more like someone living beyond their means. And taxpayers are expected to step in and assist families like yours who have a more luxurious lifestyle than most could even dream of.   If you mean 3 kids, maybe, but 3 people, well, then you want too much. A family of 3 in a 3,000 sq. ft house? $300 in groceries a week for for 3 people? Did you know your taxes would be that high before you bought the house? If so, then you brought that on yourself.

ANALYSIS OF COMMENT REGARDING NET WORTH AND ASSETS

-Sense of entitlement.  It is absurd how the wealthy and rich families believe they are entitled to everything (3,000 square foot house)..

-Net worth and Assets.   None of these benefit plans include elimination with high net worth and assets, so again, the wealthy and rich families are receiving benefits they do not deserve.  One of our last posts (see link at top of page) showed how families with considerable assets ($500,000), one spouse working and four children under age of six would receive considerable benefits while never paying a full year of tax if they retired at the age of 60 when their youngest child turned 18.

-Middle-class families with higher income levels for child benefit program complain they don’t receive same level of benefits.  Yet they refuse to acknowledge that they are the ones who would also receive the reduced tax rate from 22.5 per cent to 20 per cent for middle-class Canadians earning between $44,700 and $89,401 a year.

CONCLUSION

It is completely obscene how governments and politicians can implement programs that do not look at net worth and assets.  Families units (including singles) with high net worth and assets and low (of any kind) income do not deserve to get child benefits and other wealth-creating benefits and programs.

It is also financially discriminatory when governments and politicians only include certain family units in their financial formulas.   In Canada, family units with children benefit most while ever singles and early divorced persons without children get nothing.  In the USA, Bernie Sanders has managed to accomplish some wonderful things for financial fairness.  However, even some of his accomplishments agreed to by Hillary Clinton again target only certain family units, that is those with children (free college/university for families with incomes $125,000 or less and paid parental family and medical leave).  Most politicians, whether right or left leaning, only talk about families, with most benefits given only to families.  Singles are never mentioned let alone included in financial discussions and formulas.  What if singles want to go to college/university to get a better wage?  Why are they are not included?

Many of the reader comments correctly identify divorce and death of a spouse as having a big financial  impact on family units.  However, it is also irresponsible for family units to not have life insurance to cover these life circumstances.  Life insurance for spousal death should be mandatory, just like car and house insurance,  and should be ample enough to cover big ticket items like mortgages.  Maybe divorce insurance should also be implemented and made compulsory so that ever singles are not forced to support divorced family units.

For many years there have been great universal government programs in place like public school education, and health care.  For financial fairness, absurd programs like the child benefit programs need to be replaced with universal day care, government paid for college and university education (at least first couple of years of university) and affordable housing (should be available to all types of family units).Then, if wealthy families want to send their privileged children to elite private schools, day care and university, they can spend their own money to do so.

Benefit programs like income splitting and pension splitting under Conservatives are bad policy as they discriminate against singles, and the  widowed and divorced (and spouses earning equal incomes).   Benefit programs should focus on the poor with inclusion of net worth and asset assessments  in the financial formulas.

Governments, politicians, and families need to become financially educated on what it costs ever singles and early divorced persons without children to live.  All Canadian citizens deserve equal financial dignity and respect regardless of the type of family unit they are in.

Once children become ever single and early divorced without children adults, they should not become invisible and made to feel like they are no longer financially important to society.  All lives matter including ever singles and early divorced without children adults.

Additional Reader Comments:  click on link below:

CANADACHILDBENEFITSCOMMENTS2 (1)

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

BOUTIQUE TAX CREDITS PUSHING SINGLES INTO POVERTY-Part 2 of 2

Posted on by
1

BOUTIQUE TAX CREDITS PUSHING SINGLES INTO POVERTY-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.

six-reasons-why-married-coupled-persons-are-able-to-achieve-more-financial-power-wealth

(The last two posts discussed how detrimental boutique tax credits can become to the financial well-being of a country and its citizens.  These were based on ‘Policy Forum:  The Case Against Boutique Tax Credit and Similar Expenditures’ by Neil brooks (abstract).

This post itemizes four personal finance cases showing how certain family units may benefit far more  than other family units like ever singles and singles with children).

CASE 1 – Financial Post Personal Finance Plan, June 11, 2016 – ‘Farm Plan Risky for Couple with 4 Kids’ (financialpost)

Ed age 32 and Teresa 33 have four children ages 5, 3, 1 and newborn in British Columbia. Ed works for a government agency, Teresa is a homemaker.  At age 32 and 33, already have a net worth of $502,000 ($208,000 home not in the Vancouver area fully paid and $177,000 land with $37,000 (21%) mortgage.  They would like to sell their house, move out of town and set up a small farm.  Ed would give up his government job and secure income by selling eggs and produce.  Would like to retire with about $4,000 in present-day dollars and after tax.

Ed brings home $2,680 per month plus tax-free Canada Child Benefit (CCB) $1,811 for their four children, all under the age of 6 for total family disposable income to $4,491 per month (CCB is about 40 per cent of take-home income.  (When all four children are ages 6 to 17, the CCB will be $1,478 a month based on 2016 rates).

Financial Planner’s Recommendations – Maximize Registered Education Savings Plans (RESP), so they can capture Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG) of $500 per beneficiary for total of $7,200 (three per cent annual growth after inflation would generate about $270,000 or about $67,500 per child for post secondary-education).  Advice is that Ed continue working until the age of 60 and when the youngest child is 18.  Advice is also given for purchase of the farm, details of which will not be discussed here.  Each spouse would add $5,500 to their TFSAs for every year until Ed is age 60.

At retirement, if Ed retires at age 60 and Teresa continues as a stay at home spouse, in 2016 dollars they would have a total pre-tax income of $68,495, or $5,137 per month to spend after 10 per cent tax and no tax on TFSA payments.  At age 65, they would have total income of $86,163 with no tax on TFSA payouts and pension and age credits or $6,460 a month to spend.

If they follow financial planner advice for retirement at age 60 and maxed out contributions of RESPs and TFSAs, rough calculations show they will have received approximately $339,000 child benefits, $308,000 tax free TFSA savings  and $28,800 RESP government grants for total $675,800.  This does not include all possible benefits from other sources such as provinces, GST/HST credits and interest generated from investments.  If Ed is deceased before Teresa, as a widower Teresa will receive even more benefits as a survivor with survivor pension benefits.

All things remaining the same their assets at age 60 with farm/house $485,000, RRSP $48,000, and TFSA $349,000 will equal a total of $882,000.  So, at age 60 they will have assets close to millionaire status while paying very little in taxes.  (Financial Post rating – two stars out of five).

CASE 2 –  Financial Post Personal Finance Plan, March 24, 2016  ‘Couple sick of existing like college student are living below their means, but could still use a financial tuneup’ (financialpost)

Ontario couple Mark 45 and Cathy 43 have two kids 9 and 12 and bring home $8,670 per month ($7,000 from jobs and net rent income $1,670 from two rental properties that produce good income  in North).  At ages of 45 and 43 they already have assets of $1,480,272 including RRSPs of $300,322, liabilities of $536,315 for net worth of $943,957. Their two cars are 10 and 15 years old.  They feel like they are living like college students. Mark’s job is not secure and produces a lot of stress. They have not contributed to children’s RESP and 130 year old house requires repairs.

Financial planner advice is to restructure their finances, put money into RESPs for children and maximize RRSPs.  Both spouses have defined benefit pension plans from past employment..

At retirement pensions, RRSP, rental income and CPP/OAS at age 65 would generate  pre-tax income of $105,672.  After age and pension splitting, after-tax income at 16% tax would be about $7,400 a month.  Financial planner states they would have surplus income for travel and pleasure which they now forego, (plus they will still have assets of home and rental properties). (Financial Post rating – four stars out of five).

 

 

CASE 3 – Financial Post Personal Finance Plan, May 21, 2016 ‘Home Ownership Possible but Tight’ (financialpost)

Jessica, age 54 lives in Ontario and has three grown children.  She would like to buy $150,000 house in small town Ontario.  Assets are $40,000 LIRA, $2,400 in TFSA, $10,000 RRSP and $19,000 in company defined contribution pension plan, car $10,000 and debts of $10,700 for $70,400 net worth total.  Her take home pay is $3,315 per month. She puts $240 in TFSA, $100 in RRSP and $300 in non registered account per month. “Her outlook is to retire in 10 years, but that will be struggle.  She has to make a middle income (so stated) go a long way”.

Financial planner advice is to pay off debts in nine months.  Advice is given for purchase of a home with three per cent twenty five year mortgage and saving for retirement but it will be on a financial shoestring.  At retirement and after age and pension credits and 10% tax, she should have take home pay of $2,300 per month.  Final comment:  “her retirement will be hostage to unexpected expenses.  But she will have the security of a home of her own”.  (Financial Post rating two stars out of five).

CASE 4-Public Service Canadian employees

In same job/wage categories with 2013 annual income around $67,000 for never married singles, no children (calculations may vary slightly in provinces regarding tax and other deductions) approximate payroll deductions include income tax $11,000, CPP and EI $3,200, union dues $900, public pension contributions $5,300, RRSP deductions $3,500, parking $1,200, health premiums and insurance $600, for total of $25,700.  This leaves $41,300 take home yearly income or $3,441 per month.

personal finance cases 1

personal finance cases 2

CONCLUSION

The above four cases show four distinctly different cases, two family units with children, one single parent family unit with children and one family ever single family unit.

  • It is astounding how two parent family units with children can accumulate wealth while single parent and unattached person family units struggle to live on on $3,300 and $3,400 after tax dollars per month or $39,600 and $40,800 annually while working and into their retirement years.
  • It is absurd that tax credits should comprise 40 per cent of a family’s income when  they have the ability to become wealthy enough to not have to pay mortgage or rent. In some provinces, singles cannot have assets of more than $7,000 to get affordable housing, so why should families have assets of half a million dollars and still get full child tax credits?
  • It is absurd that a family unit never pay full taxes at any time during child rearing years only to have the ability to retire early at age 60 and have more retirement income than they had during child rearing years  and have paid little or no taxes.
  • It is absurd to claim poverty because of what it costs to raise children when in age thirties and forties family units with children already have assets of half a million dollars and higher.
  • It is absurd that married/coupled family units with children in retirement pay less than 20 per cent in taxes on very healthy retirement incomes because of pension spitting and other credits.  Where is fairness when they pay same or less level of taxes as singles on lower incomes?
  • Financial planner calls Jessica’s income middle class, but she has difficulties living on it.
  • Married or coupled family units possibly have a much better retirement life than singles in family units with and without children.  (Singles with children generally have the greatest financial struggle).
  • Life during working years is just as difficult for singles as it is for married or coupled family units.
  • Government, politicians and families need to consider all family units in financial formulas.  These should be based on equivalence scales to provide financial fairness for all family units.  Financial fairness should include not only income, but also assets.
  • It should also be stated that when examining many of the Financial Post profiles for divorced persons with children, particularly those beyond child rearing years, many appear to have assets beyond $750,000.  How is this possible?  One reason might be inherited wealth.  Second reason which has been stated over and over again in this blog is the ability for married/coupled persons with children family units to gain wealth and, therefore, already have considerable wealth when they are divorced later in life.

LESSONS LEARNED

IT IS INHERENTLY WRONG FOR GOVERNMENTS TO NOT INCLUDE ASSETS AS WELL AS INCOME WHEN DOLING OUT TAX CREDITS.  THESE CREDITS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE POOR, NOT THOSE WITH LOW INCOME AND WEALTHY ASSETS.  BETTER YET,  TAX CREDITS SHOULD  BE COMPLETELY ELIMINATED AND REPLACED BY TAXES WHICH ARE BASED ON  INCOME AND ASSETS.

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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 by
Reply

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.

SINGLES DESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FINANCIAL FAIRNESS FOR SINGLES

Posted on by
2

SINGLES DESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING

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 was published in a local newspaper on April 13, 2016)

The Calgary Herald April 9, 2016 article “Thinking inside the box” is an enlightening article on the financial plight of singles in regards to affordable housing.

This article describes how a San Francisco man has created a private sleeping space in the living room of an apartment he shares with other roommates.  He sleeps in a wooden box that is eight feet long, four and a half feet tall and probably about five or six feet wide. Inside this box is a twin bed, a fold-up desk and some LED lights.  A fan and built-in ventilation help air travel  through.  He has spent $1300 for materials.  He is also working on fully soundproofing its walls.  One wonders what the owner of apartment thinks of this ‘renovation’.

This man apparently is gainfully employed as a freelance illustrator whose work has appeared in the New Yorker.  To his credit and frugality, he has a positive attitude and readily admits he is not in dire financial straits, but has developed the box as a creative solution so that he can have a ‘private’ bedroom rather than sleeping on the couch.

In San Francisco where affordable housing is futile, one-bedroom apartments rent for median of $3,670 per month.  The article states that his roommates live in conventional bedrooms paying about $1,000 per month.  He pays $400 and has full access to the amenities of the apartment.  He calls his bedroom space a ‘pod’.   Total number of bedrooms in this apartment are not stated.

The housing situation for singles in Canada is no better.   High-rise condos in Toronto average about $455,000.  Going rental price for one-bedroom condos in local town appears to be $1,300.

It appears that desired results have been achieved for what married/coupled persons and families think are appropriate for singles.  Singles can now sleep in spaces that are less than one hundred square feet in size.  It seems these same people no longer consider singles to be their children or part of the family.  Instead, the state of business has overtaken the value of family to the point of unadulterated greed.

Singles deserve better in affordable housing solutions.  When they talk to government, decision makers and families about lack of affordable housing, they are met with anger, shunning and deaf ears.  They are given the response that it is ‘what the market can bear’.

Every adult with marital status of being single deserves a living wage and a dignified place to live that is equal to adults in families.  Every adult with marital status of being single deserves to be included in financial formulas that are equal in benefits to adults in families. Every adult with marital status of being single and and part of a family unit deserves to be treated with same financial dignity and respect as married/coupled children of the family unit.

ADDENDUM

Singles are continually told by married/coupled persons and families that they can move in with someone else if they have financial constraints.

What is most ironic with the publication of this opinion letter is that another opinion letter was published on this same date in this same newspaper by the owner of a condo villa (which is much larger in square footage) discussing how owners need to be careful about reviewing contract details when purchasing.  Examples are sodding versus ‘naturescaping’, mulch or rocks and liabilities of people falling or using skateboards on sidewalks which are the private property of the condo.

While these are valid concerns, the juxtaposition of singles deserving affordable housing versus owners of expensive large condo villas is striking.

Postscript added May 25, 2016 – There can be no doubt that there is a housing crises for Canadian singles and the poor when information such as the following is published in local media and newspapers:  ‘A shortage of affordable housing is partially to blame for a number of ads offering discounted or free rent in exchange for sex, an advocate says’. (affordable-housing-behind-some-sex-for-rent-schemes)

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

HOW MANY MORE DECADES WILL IT TAKE TO ERASE FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES?

Posted on by
1

HOW MANY MORE DECADES WILL IT TAKE TO ERASE FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES?

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

In the discussion of financial discrimination of singles, it is useful to look at the history of financial discrimination.  Two women who were strong advocates of financial equality were Marie Babare Edwards and Vivien Kellems.

Marie Babare Edwards (January 2, 1919-December 31, 2008) , was a psychologist who helped pioneer a “singles pride” movement in the 1970s through her book (co-author Eleanor Hoover), “The Challenge of Being Single,” and workshops she taught died two days before her 90th birthday.  Her 1974 book included a “A Singles’ Lib Manifesto” and spelled out the unfair costs of being single in taxes, the workplace, insurance, and housing.

Divorced after 11 years of marriage and rearing her 9-year old son alone, Edwards found herself suddenly in sync with a third of the adult U.S. population that was single — then 43 million people.

Edwards became a zealous advocate for equal social status for the never or formerly married.

Kay Trimberger, a sociologist and author of “The New Single Woman” (2005), called Edwards forward-thinking, “a pioneer, writing about the social issues of singles before it was popular. For that reason, her writing sort of got lost.”

Edwards considered the book and seminars through most of the 1970s, “my most significant contribution as a psychologist,” she later wrote, because she helped “individuals and institutions appreciate singlehood as an alternate and viable lifestyle.” (She was an extrovert who came close to remarrying several times.)  (latimes)

Vivien Kellems (1896-1975), tax resister, feminist,  industrialist and runner as a senator, fought for numerous causes during her lifetime. While she believed in equality for women (in the workplace and in the home), and she proved an avid supporter of a woman’s right to vote.  However, some of her most contentious fights were  Kellems’ highly publicized battles with the Internal Revenue Service(IRS).

Already a prominent industrialist in Connecticut, she waded into the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment.  In stating her case, she put forward her own brand of individualist feminism. By contrast, many “social feminists” at the time such as Eleanor Roosevelt opposed the ERA because it would strike down “protective legislation” for women. In 1943, Kellems asked “what are you going to do with all these women in industry? If we’re good enough to go into these factories and turn out munitions in order to win this war, we’re good enough to hold those jobs after the war and to sit at a table to determine the kind of peace that shall be made, and the kind of world we and our children are going to have in the future.”

In the years that followed, Kellems continued to battle the IRS.  Protesting that tax laws unfairly penalized unmarried individuals, Kellems never filled out another tax return. She, instead, signed blank returns every year and sent them to the IRS. She continued her fight for tax law reform right up until her death in 1975. (connecticuthistory and historynewsnetwork)

MORAL OF THE STORY

Kellems’  fight for financial equality covered several decades, notably the 1940s to the 1970s.  Marie Babare Edward’s book in 1974 was published about forty years ago.

So how far have we come in the last sixty to seventy years in eliminating financial discrimination of singles (‘ever’ singles and early divorced)?

In Canada, while we do have equality in taxes being equal for individuals regardless of marital status, we do not have equality in singles receiving benefits equal  to marital  benefits and equal inclusion in financial formulas with married/coupled persons and widowers.

Much work still needs to be done.  The question is how many more decades is it going to take to have true financial equality for singles?

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