Category Archives: financially illiterate

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).

THE TRUMP’S FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES

Posted on by
Reply

THE TRUMP’S 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).

Ivanka Trump in her speech yesterday at the Republican Convention stated that something needs to be done about single women without children being paid more than married women with children.

Some studies also show that women under the age of thirty make more than men and some studies show that employers don’t want to hire married women with children.

There also has been a lot said about women being paid less than men for the same job, married men being paid more than single men.  There is no doubt that there should equal pay for equal work.

Three different sources are outlined below showing the controversy generated by the facts and whether the fact are really true.

From “Workplace Salaries:  At Last, Women on top”, Time magazine, September 1, 2010 (time):

There has been recent evidence in the USA in many of the largest cities that the median income salaries of young women are 8% higher (and in some cases even higher) than men in their peer group.  However, this gap does not apply to rural areas and disappears for older women, married women and women with children.

However, there also are many factors where perception is false because all the facts have not been taken into consideration.  Some of these facts are:

  • Education.  Women are outpacing men in obtaining degrees.
  • Knowledge-based industries.  Larger cities which tend to have knowledge-based industries will have higher pay.  The decline of a manufacturing base in cities may result in lower wages.
  • Minorities.  Hispanic and black women are twice as likely to graduate from college as male peers.

“The holdout cities — those where the earnings of single, college-educated young women still lag men’s — tended to be built around industries that are heavily male-dominated, such as software development or military-technology contracting. In other words, Silicon Valley could also be called Gender Gap Gully.

As for the somewhat depressing caveat that the findings held true only for women who were childless and single: it’s not their marital status that puts the squeeze on their income. Rather, highly educated women tend to marry and have children later. Thus the women who earn the most in their 20s are usually single and childless”.

From “Fact Check:  Do young, childless women earn more than men?”, September 10, 2014 (abc)states:  data does not hold up because median figures don’t compare people who have the same jobs and qualifications.  They are an aggregate of the salaries of all people in a particular cohort; therefore, figures are misleading.

From “Childless Women in their twenties out-earn men.  So?”, Matthew Rouso, February 24, 2014, Forbes (forbes) :

“Statistics show only the average difference between men and women, across all jobs.  It doesn’t control for the types of job, the number of hours worked or for time taken off (to raise children, for example)….There are differences in job types, education levels, hours worked, and other factors that lead to these wage differentials.  But these factors are just as responsible for the overall difference in wages between men and women.  Once you control for factors such as college major, time off of the labor force to raise children, and hours worked per week, the gender wage gap essentially disappears.  A big part of the difference in pay is due to the choice of jobs:  women choose to enter career fields that pay less than those that men choose.   Women are still more like to be Kindergarten teachers while men are more likely to work in finance.  In short, firms aren’t discriminating against women. The reality remains that women, on average, do earn less than men.  But to blame it on discrimination is misguided.

Solutions to the gender wage gap aren’t simple.  Taking time off from a job, or working fewer hours, will reduce one’s earning potential, but many people (rightly) relish the opportunity to take time off to raise children.  There are no easy policy recommendations to deal with the loss of earning power for those who take time off to raise children.  But there is one thing we can do that would decrease the gender wage gap with no negative consequences: ensure that women are encouraged to pursue work in high-paying industries….Women may earn less than men, but causes are more complex than the cries of discrimination we hear from politicians.  When politicians mislead the public on this issue, the consequence is our delay in solving the real problem”.

Comment on Ivanka Trump’s statement:  It is difficult to find the source of her information.  Whatever the source is, what is more disturbing is the continuous reference by politicians and business people to marital status when human rights policies specifically state marital status should not be used in employment.  If Ivanka Trump wants to deal with married women’s pay, then she should address all other employment discrimination such as married men being paid more than single men.

TAX REFORM:  DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT (donaldjtrump)

Donald Trump as part of his bid for President platform has outlined his suggestion for tax reform.  A direct quote from his reform states:

“If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls…..All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25% – instead of the current seven. This new tax code eliminates the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II.”

Comment of Donald Trump’s Tax Reform:  Here we go again, past posts have shown that cost of living is higher for a single person family unit than a married or coupled family unit without children.  This once again shows the financial illiteracy and ignorance regarding singles’ finances by politicians and business persons.  We do not know all the details of American tax system, but Trump cannot just give a figure for singles, and then multiply it by two for married or coupled family units.  Finances for singles don’t work that way.  The cost of living for a single person is higher than the cost of living for a family unit of two married or coupled persons, so why should married/coupled family units get the benefit of double tax free income?  Marriage penalty???  What about all the marriage benefits that married or coupled family units receive?  He also includes a separate column for head of household in his four tax brackets.  There is no explanation of what head of household includes, so it is difficult to know what this tax group is all about.

Financial discrimination will continue if singles figures are just multiplied by two to arrive at married family unit figures.  When, when are politicians and businessmen going to drop the marital status designation and use family units as the designated standard? Why can’t tax reform be more progressive instead of using same old financially discriminatory practices?

Cost of living equivalence scales such as the square root equivalence scale show that if a value of ‘1’ is used for a single person family unit, then the value of ‘1.4’ is applied to two adults, ‘1.7’ is used for two adults one child, ‘2.0’ is used for two adults two children and ‘2.2’ is used for two adults three children.

CONCLUSION

It is pathetic that marital status continues to be used a standard for tax, hiring and income policies when this is a direct violation of human right and civil rights.  It is absurd how married or coupled family units (including the Trumps) continue to protect their own interests without including all family members in financial formulas and favouring married family units over single person family units.

Ivanka Trump says married women are being paid less than single woman.  If one considers that most of management and business persons who do the hiring and determine the income schedules are married, then married people are the ones guilty of committing the wrongful acts against themselves, so don’t go blaming singles for this! There are many who do not like unions, but at least they pay the same wage for the same work without inclusion of marital and sex status.

Married and coupled women with children want it all.  They want employment time off for their children and then want full compensation even for the years they haven’t been working. If married women take time off to be with their children, they are not going to have the same level of work experience as a single person who has continuously been employed. When are married and coupled women ever going to realize that they can’t have it all while taking singles down to a standard of living that is lower than theirs?

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

RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATORY FOR EVER SINGLES AND EARLY DIVORCED/SEPARATED PERSONS

Posted on by
1

RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATORY FOR EVER SINGLES AND EARLY DIVORCED/SEPARATED PERSONS

(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 was updated on December 1, 2017 replacing 70% information with 1.4 equivalence scale for couples to that of singles, not 2.0.

So here we go again, several organizations, primarily Chambers of Commerce and financial planning and insurance associations, have taken out a full page in newspapers across the country for an article called “It’s time for national cooperation on retirement income security” and is addressed to Federal, Provincial and Territorial Finance Ministers (clhia).  In this article, widowed elderly are highlighted over single elderly seniors in regards to living below the poverty level.

The article talks about being proud of Canada’s retirement system.  It then goes on to say: ‘That said, there are pockets of our population who are not as well-prepared for retirement as they could be.  These shortfalls are specific to certain segments of our populations. Hence, any ‘one-size-fits all’ approach could prove harmful to the economy as a whole and be unnecessary for many.We believe that the time has come to take a targeted approach to addressing any shortfalls.  Such an approach should be national in scope..  It should be fair, so that it doesn’t introduce inter-generational transfers or require over-saving where it is not needed.  It should be cost efficient and easy to implement.  It should minimize administrative burdens for employers.  And it should be good for the economy.

There are three specific segments not on track to maintain their standard of living in retirement:

  1. A small percentage of lower-income Canadians live below the poverty level, particularly the widowed elderly.  The commitment in the federal budget to increase Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) payments will provide some assistance in easing this situation  But more could and should be done, such as eliminating the claw-back for a surviving spouse under the Canada/Quebec Pension Plan.
  2. Up to 25% of modest-income Canadians (say above $27,500) are not on track, largely because they do not save outside of the public system and/or do not have workplace plans.  This group could benefit most from a modest increase in C/QPP contributions that would help meet their needs.
  3. Up to a third of higher-income Canadians are not on track to maintain their standard of living in retirement because they do not have a workplace plan or don’t maximize their participation in one, or they do not have sufficient private savings.  This group as well as all Canadians should have access to a retirement plan at the workplace, where it is easiest to save.

The undersigned urge all government to pursue a national, multi-faceted approach to improve retirement income security for all Canadians’.

The article is then signed by fifteen different organizations.

Statistics show that in 2014 there approximately 6 million seniors age 65 and over.  From BMO “Retirement for One-By Chance or By Design” (bmo) in 2008, approximately 57 percent of seniors were married; of the remaining 43 per cent of single status, 30 per cent were widowed and 13 per cent were divorced/separated or never married (ever singles).

BMO goes on to say that one of the realities for ever singles is that they lack survivor benefits.  The following table shows that ever singles and widowed persons, both with employer pensions will still probably have the same income.  For widowers with a spouse who also had an employer pension, the widower will have a higher income level from spousal employer pension survivor benefit.

income advantage senior widow over ever single2

Persons who become widowed are now ‘single’ so why should they receive special privileges like no income claw back for surviving spouses?  What do ever singles and early divorced/separated persons get that is comparable?   Studies repeatedly show that according to equivalence scales (equivalence-scales) it costs a married/coupled person family unit without kids 1.4 times that of a single person household, not double..

This blog has published several posts where it has been shown that financial advisors have no clue about the financial affairs of ever singles and early in life divorced/separated persons.  One wonders what  financial experience Chambers of Commerce have that they can comment on the financial affairs of singles.

Once again, the widowed elderly have been highlighted as an area of concern while ever singles and early divorced/separated persons are left out of the financial discussion.

There is complete financial illiteracy by most people on what it truly costs to live as a single person.  The post ‘Real Financial Lives of Singles’ (singles) gives five case studies, four of which contribute to employer pension plans, and one widowed person who has considerable wealth and is concerned that he can no longer pension split and may have his OAS clawed back.  Even with an employer pension plan it is not easy for singles to have a decent financial life.  Another post ‘Continued Financial Illiteracy of Financial Gurus Equals Financial Discrimination of Senior Singles’ (senior-singles) shows the financial silos that have been created by governments where married/coupled persons as one family unit and some widowed persons as one family unit receive more financial  benefits than ever singles and early divorced/separated persons family units.

To ensure financial equality between singles, widowers and married/coupled persons, the following measures need to be taken:

    • change financial formulas so that senior couples receive 1.4 equivalence scale only of whatever is given to a single senior person household as it costs more for single senior person household to live than it does married/coupled family units 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 revised to a rate of 1.4 to that of a single person)
    • create a side-by-side list of all possible benefits under categories of married/coupled, widowed and single and analyze what each category gets in benefits.  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.
    • financial benefits should be income-tested for all family unit types.  Income testing should include housing and savings.  It is likely to cost ever singles more to live as they are more likely to rent while widowers are more likely to own their own homes.
    • all financial formulas for singles should include ever singles, early divorced/separated persons and widowers on an equal basis.

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.)

 

 

CONTINUED FINANCIAL ILLITERACY OF FINANCIAL GURUS EQUALS FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SENIOR SINGLES (Part 1 of 2)

Posted on by
Reply

CONTINUED FINANCIAL ILLITERACY OF FINANCIAL GURUS EQUALS FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SENIOR SINGLES (Part 1 of 2)

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

In February, 2016 the Broadbent Institute and Richard Shillington of Tristat Resources in Canada has published the report:  “An Analysis of the Economic Circumstances of Canadian Seniors” http://goo.gl/HNP2Ee

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.

Using LIM (low-income measure) senior poverty has increased from a low of 3.9 per cent in 1995 to 11.1 per, or one in nine, in 2013.  The poverty rates for single seniors, particularly women (at nearly 30 per cent), are very high and need to be addressed, (Page 2).   (LICO, or Low Income Cut Off, is not used here because it is not a true income poverty indicator as it was set in 1992 where families spend 20 per cent more of their income on necessities than was typical and has not been reset since.)

(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’ singles, divorced/separated, and widowed seniors living alone.)

In Canada, the income-tested OAS (Old Age Security) and GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement) benefits together provide a regular minimum economic guarantee and are used to supplement regular income (from CPP-Canadian Pension Plan, private pensions and private savings) to lift seniors out of poverty.

Some of  the key findings of the report include:

  • The proportion of the population receiving the GIS is higher for senior singles than couples, and higher for single women (between 44 per cent and 48 per cent) than for single men (between 31 percent and 37 per cent), (Page 3).
  • ‘Roughly half of those aged 55-64 with no employer pension  benefits….. have savings that represent less than one year’s worth of the resources they need to supplement OAS/GIS and CPP.  Fewer than 20 per cent have enough savings to support the supplemented resources required for at least five years, (Page 3)…..For those with incomes in $50,000-$100,000 range, the median value is only $21,000…..(Page 3).
  • The overall median value of retirement assets of those aged 55-64 with no accrued pension benefits is just over $3,000.  For those with annual incomes in the range of $25,000-$50,000. the median value is just over $250.  For those with incomes in the $50,000-$100,000 range, the median value is only $21,000, (Page 3).
  • Only a small minority (roughly 15-20 per cent) of middle-income Canadians retiring without an employee pension plan have saved….enough for retirement.  The vast majority of those families with annual incomes of $50,000 and more will be hard pressed to save enough in their remaining period to retirement (less than 10 years)…..(Page 3).
  • The seniors’ poverty gap is $2.5 billion in aggregate annually, due to the 719,000 poor seniors (469,000 singles and 250,000 living in an economic family.)  A 10 per cent benefit increase in the GIS to address this gap would cost $1,628 million, and would reduce the number of poor seniors (married/coupled and singles) by about 149,000, (Page 3).
  • In the recent election, the Federal Liberal Party promised to increase the GIS by 10 per cent for single seniors.  (NOTE:  this does not include coupled seniors).  A simulation using Statistics Canada’s Social Policy Simulation Database and Model (SPSD/M) suggests this would cost $700 million and remove about 85,000 single seniors from the poverty roles, with a reduction in the singles poverty rate of 5.7 percentage points, (Page 3).  (Singles poverty rate of 5.7 percentage points from approximately  28 per cent for senior single females, and 24 per cent for senior single males, that’s all???)

Factors Affecting Seniors Poverty

As of July 2015, the income-tested maximum annual OAS/GIS benefits for seniors aged 65 and over with no other source of income were $15,970 for singles and $25,746 for couples…..The GIS is phased out as income rises and is reduced to zero above an annual income (thus calculated) of $17,136 for single seniors and $22,068 for senior couples, (Page 9).

Reliance on the GIS is greater for single seniors than it is for senior couples across all age ranges…..  For example, 41 per cent of all seniors over 85 receive the GIS, while only 30 per cent of seniors aged 66-69 receive it. (Page 9).

Pension Coverage (Page 12)

The difference in incomes at retirement between those seniors with and without a pension income is stark…..The difference is not all due simply to the presence or absence of an employer pension plan.  Those who have had an employer pension plan are more likely to have had better paying jobs, and jobs with health and other benefits.  As well, it is possible for those who seek out jobs with a pension are more likely to be those motivated to save for retirement.  But certainly, participating in a pension offers advantages that make it easier to have a higher income at retirement, (Page 12).

For couples, those without pension income have significantly lower total incomes ($52,000) to compared to those with pension income ($68,000).  This is despite their higher income from earnings ($19,100 for those without pension income, compared to $7,200 for those with pension income).

For individuals, the story is very different:  They are more likely than couples to be over the age of 70, and much less likely to be employed.  For single women, the median incomes are $18,000 for those without a pension and $30,400 for those with a pension  For men, the medians are $19,000 and $37,300, respectively.  These gaps are significant, (Page 12).

LIM (Low Income Measure) is used in this report and is based on after-tax income to assess poverty of seniors.  This measure shows what proportion of persons have after-tax incomes that are less than half of the median or midpoint to comparable families.

Two criterion to assess adequacy of income at retirement are:  1)  poverty criterion, and 2) replacement rate concept, (Page 13).

Generally,  the median incomes for those without pension income is just over half for those with pension income, (Page 13).

The report goes on “to suggest that a significant proportion of those without an employer pension plan will not have saved adequately for retirement and will suffer a major loss of income”.

Retirement savings without employer pension (Page 14-16)

Report states that from Survey of Financial Security for 2012 about half of families (what is the definition of family here?) aged 55-64 without an employer pension have virtually no savings; indeed 78 per of them have less than $100,000 in retirement savings.  Lower-income families eligible for OAS/GIS along with CPP may still have little or no drop in income, however inadequate that income might be, (Page 14).

….Vast majority of these families with annual incomes of $50,000 and more will be hard pressed to save enough in their remaining period of retirement (less than 10 years) to avoid a significant fall in income.  It appears that at least 25 per cent have very limited retirement assets despite incomes of $50,000-$200,000, (Page 15).

The report does state that ‘analysis presented in tables is somewhat simplistic because it ignores the impact of public benefits (OAS/GIS and CPP) on the amount that future seniors need to save.  It is also accepted that many seniors need less income in retirement in order to maintain the standard of living that they had pre-retirement.  The actual replacement rate required-the ratio of post-retirement to pre-retirement income-varies by how it is measured (pre- or post-tax).  Seventy per cent is commonly used, although it varies by individual circumstances and tastes; higher values are more appropriate for the poor, and lower values are more appropriate for the very wealthy’, (Page 15-16).

Retirement savings compared to income (Page 16-20)

Tables show widespread under-saving using calculations of 70 per cent pre-tax replacement rate…

Some do not need to save for retirement to get 70 per cent replacement because their income is quite low (below $21,429 for singles and $35,714 for couples).  These individuals and couples were deleted from table 5…..,(Page 16).

To illustrate, a family with an income of $100,000 (pre-tax) is assumed to need $70,000 (70 per cent of $100,000), and will get roughly $25,000 in public support.  Thus, they will need to make up $45,000 per year from their private savings, (Page 16).

Even those with an income of more than $100,000 are unlikely to have more than five years worth of the required supplemental income in their retirement savings; only 21 per cent meet this criterion……(Page 17).

In summary, regardless of income, few of these families have enough savings to supplement their income for even one year.  Only 15-20 per cent have enough for five or more years. (Page 17).

…..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).

One Option:  Reducing seniors poverty with GIS

The report then makes suggestions for decreasing poverty rate. One option is reducing seniors poverty with short term changes to GIS.  One of the paragraphs is as follows:

Table 6 presents estimates of the poverty gap using Statistics Canada’s SPSD/M microsimulation model. The poverty gap is the total amount of money that would be needed to raise the incomes of all poor seniors to the LIM poverty line-ignoring any  behavioral impacts of the transfer programs used to achieve that goal…..The poverty gap is $2.5 billion in aggregate, which is due to the 719,000 seniors:  419,000 singles and 250,000 living in an economic family.  The average gap is $2,400 for singles and $5,500 for seniors in a family, (Page 20-21).

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).

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.  (Really???  How is this so when single status needs to reported on income tax returns; lying about marital status is a felony?).

Taking one example (from Table 7) of the tabulated results, a 10.0 increase is estimated to increase the cost of the GIS by $1,628 million to yield a poverty rate of 10.5 per cent and to reduce the number of poor seniors by about 149,000, (Page 22).

The (Federal) Liberal Party’s proposal in the recent election was to increase the GIS by 10 per cent for single seniors.  The SPSD/M simulation suggests that this would cost $700 million and remove about 85,000 single seniors from poverty, with a reduction in the singles poverty rate of 5.7 percentage points.  While a reasonable starting point, clearly much more can be done to reduce the poverty rate, (Page 22).

Conclusions

Poverty rates for seniors have been trending up since 1995.  Rates remain unacceptably high for single seniors-particularly women-and the worsening trends in pension coverage point to further increases in poverty in the future.  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, (Page 23).

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

 

GOVERNMENT CPP BAFFLEGAB MORE IMPORTANT THAN FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES AND QUALITY OF LIFE

Posted on by
4

GOVERNMENT CPP BAFFLEGAB MORE IMPORTANT THAN FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF CANADIAN SINGLES

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

There has been much discussion lately as to whether the CPP (Canada Pension Plan) system should be changed.  The objective of the government is for country to live in a society that takes care of its citizens.  The reality is that some citizens are being taken care of more than others, that is the rich and married/coupled persons while singles and low income are being financially discriminated against.

EXAMPLES OF FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION

  • TARGETED TAX RELIEF PROGRAMS FOR SENIORS-The Federal Conservative government has a targeted tax relief program where a single senior can now earn $20,360 and a senior couple $40,720 before paying federal income tax.  Program claims that approximately 400,000 seniors (or 7 to 8% of total Canadian seniors) have been removed from the tax rolls altogether.  This so called tax relief for seniors allows federal tax relief for senior 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 medications and maybe even a nice little vacation all tax free.

It is a well-known fact that singles require more income to that of a married/coupled persons living as a single unit.  In Equivalence scales (Statistics Canada 75F0002M – Section 2 ‘The LIM and proposed Modifications’ (75f0002) (equivalence-scales) if singles are assigned a value of 1.0, then couples require 1.4 times for income, not 2.0. $20,360 times 1.4 equals $28,504 ($2,375 per month) (updated November 18, 2017).  If the federal government cared about income equality and quality of life for senior singles, it would increase the tax free amount for singles.  By not applying equivalence scales to  income for senior singles, they lose $678 a month or approximately $8,000 Lost Dollar Value annually in quality of  life to married/couple retired persons.  (From age 65 to 90, this amounts to $20,000).

When income for senior married/coupled persons is over $40,000 they again get another benefit, that is pension splitting, which singles cannot use increasing quality of life for married/coupled persons over senior singles.  This is a tax benefit piled on top of another tax benefit.

The number of senior ‘ever’ singles (never married, no kids) and divorced/separated persons comprises only about 13 per cent of the population, so how much would it cost to bring the quality of life for these citizens up to the standard of tax relief for married/coupled persons?  The answer is ‘not very much’ in comparison  to what has been given to  married/coupled senior persons.

“Ever” singles are told every day they are worthless and worth less than married/coupled persons even though they have worked 35 – 40 years subsidizing mother/baby hospital care, EI paternal/maternal leave, education taxes even though they have had no children and paid more taxes than families.

  • GOVERNMENTS IGNORE COURT RULINGS–Re Allowance Program and Credits, (policyalternatives) 2009 Policy Brief, “A Stronger Foundation-Pension Reform and Old Age Security” by Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, page 4, states this program discriminates on basis of marital status as confirmed by case brought under 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.’  So what is happening?  Age eligibility for Allowance will change from 60 to 62 beginning in 2023 with full implementation in 2029.  In this democratic, civilized country let’s just ignore federal court rulings and continue a $? million discriminatory program.  Article suggests that ‘OAS (Old Age Security) and GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement) combined should be increased to at least bring it up to after-tax LICO (Low Income Cut Off) for single individuals.’  And why should married/coupled people get discriminatory marital status benefits where unused credits like Age Credits can be transferred to spouse?

Gross financial discrimination for singles occurs when governments choose to completely ignore court rulings.  Lost Dollar Value to singles:  unable to calculate.

  • PENSION SPLITTING–It is immoral and ethically irresponsible for governments to deny that pension splitting benefits the wealthy most.  For families who can be exempt from paying 10 – !5 percent income tax on $100,000 and maintain the same income level during retirement as they had during their working years, even though they have less expenses during retirement, is financially discriminating to  singles who cannot pension split.  (This information was revised April 10, 2016 – Lost Dollar Value:  From estimate on income splitting, it has been suggested that income splitting would provide tax relief of $103 for income $30,000 or less and $1,832 for income of $90,000 and over or an average of $794 overall.  If $800 ($794 rounded off) is calculated times 35 years (age 65 to 90), then Lost Dollar Value will equal $28,000.)
  • HOUSING-Financial gurus seem to be leaning towards renting instead of home ownership.  This creates further hardship  for singles and the low income.  If young married/coupled persons are being told that they will probably need to rent because housing prices are out of reach, where does this leave singles and low income persons?  Trend now is towards tiny houses with composting toilets and tanks for storing water, but the rich don’t want to see tiny houses in their backyards.

Try telling singles and low income person that renting is the better alternative when they pay more per square foot and quality of housing is lower than that of houses for families.  If they have problems with not enough income for housing, they are told they should go live with someone.  These people ought to try ‘walking in the shoes’ of singles living in one room or communal situations, where because of low income, they don’t have their own bathroom, and it becomes a ‘dog eat dog’ world where others will, for example, steal food because there is not enough money to buy food. (cprn.org)

The housing market (rental and ownership) is financially completely upside down.  Instead of the rich and middle class paying more for the greatest amount of square footage, they are paying less for the greatest amount of square footage and niceties associated with that.  Singles and low income will be living in hovels, thus violating Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs principle.

  • IF MONEY IS THERE YOU WILL SPEND IT, IF IT IS NOT, YOU WON’T–Financial studies have come to  conclusions that for people in the lowest income quintile on average have replacement rates of 100 percent, implying their real standard of living actually rises after retirement.  This is such a lie and is totally irrelevant to singles and low income persons.  If there is a poor quality of life before retirement, there still will be a poor quality of life on 100 percent replacement income for singles that does not meet the 1.4 income equivalent (updated November 17, 2017) to that of married/coupled persons living as a single unit.

CONCLUSIONS

Governments, decision makers, some financial advisers to the government. and think tanks are financially illiterate about the financial discrimination of singles.

It seems to be more important for governments to ensure that upper-middle class and upper class maintain their standard of living than it is to treat singles fairly.

Unprecedented growth in value of houses will result in huge tax-free wealth for families and married/coupled persons to the financial detriment of singles and low income.

Marital manna benefits like pension splitting has created a nanny state where married/coupled persons want it all and once these benefits are in place, it is very difficult to get rid of them.  Married/coupled persons have been made irresponsible by their own government.  They are not living a lower life style in their retirement.  A further question is whether these programs will be financially sustainable.

Assumption that retirement income only needs to replaced at 70 percent, for example, does not hold true for both singles and married/coupled persons, because singles require 1.4 income equivalent to married/coupled persons living as a single unit (updated November 17, 2017).  Twenty thousand dollars a year is not an adequate quality of life retirement income for Canadian senior singles.

GOVERNMENTS NEED TO ADDRESS FINANCIAL EQUALITY FIRST FOR ALL CANADIAN CITIZENS REGARDLESS OF MARITAL STATUS, THEN TWEAK CPP.

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

FINANCIAL GURUS FINANCIALLY ILLITERATE ABOUT SINGLES’ FINANCES

Posted on by
1

FINANCIAL GURUS FINANCIALLY ILLITERATE ABOUT SINGLES’ FINANCES

(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.)

In the definition of family, for example Canada Revenue Agency, ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separated persons are included in the definition of family, but in financial discussions by financial gurus they are often ‘kicked out’ of the family.

Financial gurus are often financially illiterate and discriminatory in the financial affairs of singles.  The most often egregious examples of this is the exclusion of  ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separated persons from their blogs and studies.  The following three examples are used as a basis for this post.

Example #1

(false-assumptions-four-ways-seniors-singles-lose) The December 2, 2015 post “False Assumptions of Article ‘Four Ways Senior Singles Lose Out’” talks about false assumptions and false categorization of singles by Ted Rechtshaffen’s October 13, 2012 article “Four Ways Senior Singles Lose Out”.  In this article he states 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 for only widowed and later in life divorced/separated persons.  ‘Ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separated persons were left out by exclusion because definition of single status was incorrectly used.  (Ted Rechtshaffen is president and wealth advisor at TriDelta Financial, a boutique wealth management and planning firm) (http://www.tridelta.ca/)

Example #2

(thebluntbeancounter)  The Blunt Bean Counter blog by Mark Goodfield article “The Burden of Singledom” May 6, 2014 is a response to a single person who stated his blog series on retirement was no help and was indeed obscene (this was stated in his blog) to her as a single person.  He is a Chartered Professional Accountant who readily admits that his blog is for everyone, but in particular high net worth individuals and owners of private corporations.  He states that the target audience was not singles or low income Canadians for the retirement series.  There is no problem with this statement; however, he asked Rona Birenbaum to do a guest post, a well-known and often quoted financial planner who also typically deals with high net worth clients.  Her article, ‘The Burden of Singledom’ again gave no meaningful advice beyond what is already known by singles.

Example #3

Dr. Jack Mintz is the President’s Fellow of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary.  Jack Mintz and Philip Bazel published an article in February 2014 called “Income Adequacy among Canadian Seniors:  Helping Singles Most” (policyschool.ucalgary)

In the article the following statements are made:

‘Policies should be directed at these most vulnerable single seniors, such as enhancements to the GIS top-up program targeted at those seniors with the lowest incomes, and increased survivor-benefit rates under the Canada Pension Plan.’

’When the income inadequacy of singles and married couples is evaluated using LICO (Low Income Cut-Off), we find a significantly higher incidence of elderly singles with income under $20,000 below the LICO threshold (52.6 percent) when compared with the LICO incidence of elderly households containing a married couple below $40,000 (15.7 per cent for households containing a couple with one elderly, and 6.3 per cent for households containing a couple with two elderly)’.

Such a statement shows financial illiteracy to the finances realities of senior singles as it costs them 70 per cent of what it costs a married/couple persons to live as a single unit.  A better alternative would be to forget the marital manna benefits directed to survivors or widowed persons and treat all senior singles whether they are ‘ever’ singles, divorced/separated or widowed persons as equals with top-ups equal to 70 percent of married/coupled person units.  The 52.6 per cent for singles versus 15.7 and 6.3 per cent for married persons mentioned in above quote shows an enormous spread between the two and is proof of this.  Financially, while in a coupled state, widowed persons appear to have a pretty good quality of life while singles below LICO appear to never have an equivalent quality of life.

(Many low income singles do not have close family members to live with and when they are forced to cohabitate in non-family situations, they often live in undesirable situations such as other household members stealing food, etc., “Social Housing Waitlists and the One Person Households in Ontario”)  (to-rent-or-own-affordable-housing-that-is-the-question)

Seniors living with family is an expense to the family unit.  However, senior singles living on their own have to incur not only 100% of the living costs, but also 70% of the costs of married/coupled persons as a single unit.

Financial gurus state that 70 per cent replacement of pre-retirement income is the standard norm for retirement.  Statistics Canada analysis has found that gross replacement rates vary by income but typically is about 70 percent.  People in the lowest 20 percent income quintile have replacement rates of 100 percent, implying their real standard of living actually rises after retirement. However, the real truth common sense evaluation of these findings show that married/coupled people financially benefit more than singles and divorced/separated persons.  A higher income level for the low income single person is still a low level income.  Financial gurus seem to think that when Canadians have an equal or greater income during retirement than while they are working, that is okay.  Try telling that to low income Canadian ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separate persons who have not received the same benefits and are unable to save at the same rate as families or married/coupled persons during their working lives and, therefore, have lower retirement income.

(senior-singles-pay-more-part-4-of-4-response-to-reader-letters) An example of retired ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separated singles receiving less is the December 22, 2015 blog “Senior Singles Pay More, Part 4 of 4”  showing that in a targeted tax relief program single seniors pay no tax on up $20,360 income, while married/coupled seniors pay no tax on up to $40,720 income.  (It costs more for singles to live person to person that it does for married/coupled persons.  This program barely covers the rent for a senior single, but allows married/couple senior to live a much better financial lifestyle).  A further example is the 10 per cent increase of the GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement) for low income single seniors in the 2015 budget. One person has indicated that this has amounted to an increase of only $17 per month.

Conclusion

  1. Financial gurus like Chartered Professional Accountants, writers of blogs, members of think tanks and financial planners need to educate themselves and include all singles in their discussions, not just widowed persons and later in life divorced/separated singles.
  2. Financial gurus need to insure singles of all types are given fair and equal financial status in financial formulas and decision making.
  3. Financial gurus need to become educated on what it truly costs ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separated persons to live.  It costs these persons 70 percent of what it costs married/coupled persons to live as a unit.  These extra living costs need to be included in financial formulas and financial decision making.

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.

SENIOR SINGLES PAY MORE – Part 4 of 4

Posted on by
3

RESPONSE TO LETTERS ON UNFAIR SINGLE SENIORS TAXATION

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 originally published in a local newspaper on September 9, 2015.  Since there is a space limit for number of words that can be submitted to newspapers, additional comments that do not appear in the original published article have been added here in italics).  This blog post was updated on December 1, 2017 replacing 60-70% of living costs to 1.4 equivalence scale (equivalence-scales) for singles.

 Here we go again.  Opinion letters from last two weeks show married/coupled people cannot put themselves into singles’ financial shoes without dumbing down singles’ opinions and sticking singles’ finances into family financial boxes.  Unfortunately, singles finances don’t work that way.  Following is a response to both letters.

Re TFSAs (Tax Free Savings Accounts), caps must be set on TFSA amounts.  Otherwise, wealth spread between married/coupled people and singles and low income people will exponentially widen with less money collected in tax systems, and ability to pay for public programs such as education disappearing.  Most singles, single parent and low income families are unable to max out TFSAs at lower limit, let alone higher limit (and RRSPs-Registered Retirement Savings Plans).

Re income splitting benefits, multiple discussions show wealthy families benefit more than other families.  Present format implies households with singles, single parents (don’t get to stay home to raise kids) and parents with equal incomes don’t deserve same financial equality.  Re pension splitting married/coupled people already get two of everything including pensions.

You say bizarre conclusions have been reached.  Let’s talk bizarre.  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 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.’

So what is happening?  Age eligibility for Allowance benefits will change from 60 to 62 beginning in 2023 with full implementation in 2029.  In this democratic, civilized country let’s just ignore federal court rulings and continue a $? million discriminatory program.  Article also suggests that:

‘OAS (Old Age Security) and GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement) combined should be increased to at least bring it up to after-tax LICO (Low Income Cut Off) for single individuals.’

Why should married/coupled people get discriminatory marital status benefits where unused credits like Age Credits benefits can be transferred to spouse?

Conservatives are so proud they have initiated targeted tax relief benefit where single senior can now earn $20,360 and senior couple $40,720 before paying federal income tax.  Using simple math, tax relief for single seniors is only $1,697 per month, for senior couples $3,393 per month.  Rent or mortgage payment of $1,000 per month is barely covered for singles, but is amply covered for senior couple.

BMO Retirement Institute Report “Retirement for One-By Chance or Design” 2009 .bmo.com and other reports state present tax systems give huge advantages to married/coupled people with singles never married or divorced at some point throughout their entire working career usually subsidizing married/coupled people.

Russell Investments “Spending Patterns in Retirement”, February 2010, russell.com states:

‘government transfers, such as CPP and OAS are generally not sufficient to cover Essentials of Retirement.  Problem is magnified for single retirees.  For example, in $35,000-$60,000 income category, couples spend only about 12% more than singles on essentials, yet receive about 80% more in government transfers’.

Eighty per cent more in transfers, why can’t married/coupled people grasp this fact?  Why can’t families understand that ‘ever’ singles have not used medical services for baby delivery, maternal/paternal paid LOA’s from work and many have not used any EI benefits?  Instead ‘ever’ singles are financially supporting and subsidizing families.

Reader #2 letter also talks about how expensive it is to raise a disabled child.  It is no different living as a disabled adult.  The Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH program in Alberta) allows only $1,588 a month for an unemployed disabled person of single status.

True living costs for singles must be recognized.  Using equivalence scales it is a well-established fact that living costs for singles are 1.4 to that of a couple.  If married persons own their homes outright, the cost of living is even less to that of singles who rent or have a mortgage.  If programs such as pension splitting and survivor benefits continue for married/coupled and widowed seniors, then at same time, singles and not widowed single seniors should get 1.4 equivalent scale enhancements through GIS and OAS relative to married/coupled persons’ baselines.   Equivalence scale of 1.4  for couples to that of singles’ federal tax relief of $20,360 income should equal $28,504 ($2,375 per month) not $40,720 for couples.  Why is that too much to ask?

Politicians and most families are financially illiterate in financial affairs of singles.  The Conservative political parties (provincial and federal) are particularly guilty of this as many marital status benefits have been implemented under their watch.

Further advice from reader letters state singles can live with someone else when they are already living in studio, one bedroom apartments, and basement suites.  Senior singles who have lived productive lives while contributing to their country want and deserve their own privacy and bathroom.  Many senior assisted living dwellings have in recent years built more spaces for singles who with one income pay more for that space than married/coupled persons.  Just how long should shared arrangements go on for (entire lives?) instead of correcting underlying financial issues?

Following examples show financial dignity and respect for singles (and low income families).  Attainable Housing (attainyourhome), Calgary, allows maximum household income of $90,000 for single and dual/parent families with dependent children living in the home and maximum household income of $80,000 for singles and couples with no dependent children living in the home.  Living Wage for Guelph and Wellington allows singles dignity of one bedroom and living wage income that is 44% of a family of 4 income and 62% of a family of two (parent and child).

Assumptions that middle class singles can live on average after tax income of $27,212 is bizarre.  Suggestion of $200 food budget and $110 transportation per month for singles is unrealistic.  At present gas prices, $150 per month is barely adequate for 30-40 minute drive to and from work.  For comparison, Living Wage for Guelph and Wellington (livingwagecanada) (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).  (It should be noted that men require more calories; therefore, their budget for food will be higher.  Also in 2015, the living wage for Guelph and Wellington has been set at $16.50 per hour).

Reader #2 letter seems to include expenses such as utilities, insurance, and phone bill in family expenses, but excludes them from the single person expenses.  Reader #2 seems to think that $500.00 after food, transportation, clothing and rent expenses per month is ample money to cover miscellaneous expenses such as laundry, recreation and eating out plus the non-mentioned utilities, insurance and phone bill. The reader #2 letter then goes on to say:  ‘And, if a single person cuts out some of the recreational activities and eating out, could break even at the lower end.’  Once again there is that assumption that singles spend too much on recreation and eating out.  And, of course, there is no mention of singles having to save for emergencies or retirement.

While singles are living in their small spaces (average size of new studio, one bed and one bed/den new condo combined being built in Toronto is 697 sq. feet), majority of Canadian married/coupled people families are living in average 1950 sq. foot houses (2010) with large gourmet kitchens, multiple bathrooms, bedrooms for each child and guests, basement, garage, yard, and nice patio with barbecue, etc.

Families don’t take their own advice which they dish out to singles.  Senior couples or widowed don’t want to give up their big houses, but ask for reduced house taxes and senior’s school property tax assistance programs (Calgary Herald, “Not Now” letter to the editor, August 26, 2015).  If you can’t pay your house taxes, how about moving to smaller place or go live with someone (tit for tat)?  If families with kids don’t pay school property taxes as seniors, then homeowners who have never had kids should not have to pay school taxes throughout their entire lives.

Financial discrimination of singles is accepted in mainstream and is, indeed, celebrated.  Article like “Marrying for money pays off” (researchnews) implies married/coupled persons and families are more financially responsible.

In Calgary Herald article, August 7, 2012, Financial Post “Ten Events in Personal Financial Decathlon Success” (personal-financial-decathlon), the Family Status step says:

‘From a financial perspective, best scenario is a marriage for life.  It provide stability for planning, full opportunities for tax planning and income splitting and ideally for sharing responsibilities that can enhance each other’s goals and careers.  One or two divorces can cause significant financial damage.  Being single also minimizes some of the tax and pension advantages that couples benefit from’.

How nice!

There is no need for another political party as stated in Reader #1 letter.  In present political system, singles are losing financial ground.   Words ‘individuals’ or ‘singles’ rarely come to the financial lips of politicians, families or media.   What is needed is to bring financial issues of singles to same financial table as families and to make positive changes for both parties to financial formulas.  Singles are not asking for more financial benefits than families, but equivalency to family benefits as applicable at rate of 1.4 to that of household comprised of two persons.  They deserve this as citizens of this country.

So when singles are no longer able to live with financial dignity thus creating financial singles ghettos (financial bankruptcy because they are not included in financial formulas), just what will society do?  Apparently, they are looking for people to go to Mars.  Singles could always be involuntarily sent there.  Out of sight, out of mind.

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