REGRESSIVE TAX EXPENDITURE MISCONCEPTIONS INCLUDING GOVERNMENT DIVIDEND CHEQUES

Posted on August 31, 2018 by ffswpadmin

REGRESSIVE TAX EXPENDITURE MISCONCEPTIONS INCLUDING GOVERNMENT DIVIDEND CHEQUES

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

This opinion letter was originally submitted in abbreviated format to a local newspaper in response to a reader opinion letter. It emphasizes the bizarreness of Conservatives who don’t see Alaskan natural resources dividends as being equivalent to a basic income program, view dividend cheques to be a right, not a privilege (while touting individual responsibility), and have no problem with receiving these monies even for children who haven’t worked for it or paid taxes.

The blog post ‘Money Benefit Programs Financially Benefit Married/coupled Persons and Families More Than Singles’ highlighting Alaska Permanent Fund Dividends was originally published several years ago and has been reproduced in its entirety at the end of this post.

RE: READER OPINION LETTER ON ALASKA PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND (PFD)

(Alaskan dividend program was established by the Republican (conservative) party in 1976. From 1996 to 2015, the benefits have ranged from a low of $846 to a high of $2,072 annually. For a family of four the twenty year total amounts to $113,156, and for a single person household the amount is $28,289. A lot more can be done with $113,000 than $28,000. And, all is not as rosy as it seems. Alaska also has concerns about excessive government spending (pfd-effect). For the third straight year, dividends would be more than $1,000 less than they would be under the previous formula written into state law).

The reader opinion letter, while stating Klein and related Conservative ilk took money out of voter pockets, also implies that it is better that every Alaskan man, woman, and child has received $43,000 in annual dividend cheques since 1982 – 2017 amount was $1,100. Single person household would have received $1,100, lone parent with child or married with no children $2,200, two adults, one child $3,300 and two adults, two children $4,400. You figure out what each household would have received over twenty years during lifecycle of rearing children.

The same truth applies to Klein $400 bucks. A family with eight children received $4,000 while single person received $400 (this is a true story).

Why is it that Conservative families are always in the business of making more money for themselves, but tout individual responsibility? Why should children, like a one day old infant receive dividends when they haven’t paid any taxes or contributed to getting those resources out of the ground? Instead, they are consuming resources such as education without contributing to them by paying taxes.

It doesn’t matter whether it is dividend cheques, Klein ‘bucks’ or natural disaster relief funds (fire-disaster-assistance). When children are treated financially equal to adults, single adults will always be the losers even when they have worked more than forty years, not used EI or maternity/paternity benefits, paid education taxes when they have no children, etc. Families with children are receiving government transfers that singles don’t receive.

Financial fairness for all Canadians, regardless of marital or child status, will only be achieved when Market Basket Measure and net worth and assets are included in financial formulas. The Canada Child Benefit is financially fairer than natural resource dividends (good thing for lone parents and poor families). The Market Basket Measure cost of living scale counts an unattached individual as 1.0, and adds 0.4 for the second person (regardless of age), 0.4 for additional adults, and 0.3 for additional children. The addition of an adult or child to household does not double or triple the cost of living, but adds smaller percentage to it.

It is time for politicians, married persons and families to stop the financial cherry picking and gaslighting. Instead of spreading half truths it is time to develop fair financial formulas based on MBM and net worth irrespective of what political party person belongs to.

ANALYSIS OF REGRESSIVE TAX EXPENDITURES SUCH AS DIVIDEND CHEQUES

Critical common sense thinking highlights the fallacies of Conservative thinking which they, themselves, cannot see.

Conservatives don’t see Alaskan dividends as equivalent to basic income programs and they don’t see this as equivalent to socialist programs. Doug Ford, since coming into power as Ontario Conservative Premier, has broken his promise by deleting the basic income pilot program authored by the outgoing Liberal Party. Alaskan dividends are as socialiastic as any basic income program.

Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard on Alaskan dividends (see blog article below) state: ‘It provides a model of cash transfers to individuals without any stigma of dependence, fraud, waste, or failure—attributes often attached recipients of other government cash transfers. The PFD funding source in natural resources rather than in taxes on individual income or wealth seems to exempt its recipients from any need to justify their use of the dividend, and to exempt the transfer as a whole from the ‘socialist’ label….’

Alaskan dividends are paid irrespective of any income from other sources and does not require the performance of work or the willingness to accept a job if offered. Unlike social assistance programs, it is not means-tested. Surely, this should rile up Conservatives who continually talk about personal responsibility and denigrate the poor as being lazy. Conservatives never want to raise the minimum wage.

Conservatives just don’t get that Alaskan dividends are a regressive tax expenditure. Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard state: ‘the PFD together with the elimination of the state individual income tax that was part of its founding has an overall regressive effect on income distribution. To have a significant redistributive effect, the PFD would have to be recouped from wealthy individuals; in the absence of a progressive state income, consumption, or wealth tax, the PFD would have to be distributed on a sliding scale with larger dividends given to those with less income from other sources, rather than as a uniform flat payment….’

Alaskan dividends are paid out to individuals rather than households. Payouts based on Market Basket Measure (MBM) or OECD Equivalence scales (equivalence-scales) would be financially fairer and would spread monies over a longer period of time.

What about those states or provinces that do not have natural resources? How do they handle progressive versus regressive tax expenditure? The answer is through taxes and social justice programs.

It has been argued that it is preferable to have dividends from natural resources be distributed broadly rather than end up in the pockets of only a few corporate executives, wealthy shareholders, and political cronies. However, dividends distributed without marital status, number of children, income and net worth and assets consideration still means there will be an uneven distribution of dividends benefiting wealthy the most.

REPRODUCTION OF PREVIOUS BLOG POST

http://www.financialfairnessforsingles.ca/singles/2016/03/07/money-benefit-programs-financially-benefit-marriedcoupled-persons-and-families-more-than-singles/

MONEY BENEFIT PROGRAMS FINANCIALLY BENEFIT MARRIED/COUPLED PERSONS AND FAMILIES MORE THAN SINGLES

Married/coupled persons and families often receive ‘free money’ benefits that financially benefit them much more than singles.

Two very good examples of these benefits are the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend and the ‘Ralph Klein $400 Bucks’ Program.

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividends

The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) program implemented in 1982 is an annual payment paid to individuals (children as well as adults) rather than households. It is paid irrespective of any income from other sources and does not require the performance of work or the willingness to accept a job if offered. Unlike social assistance programs, it is not means-tested.

The book “Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining Its Suitability as a Model”, edited by Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard states the following:

‘…..In 2008, when the PFD reached its highest level at $2,069, the individual poverty threshold in the United States was approximately $11,000; for a family of four it was approximately $22,000. Thus, at its highest level, the PFD would have provided less than 20 percent of the income necessary for an to individual to reach the poverty threshold, but almost 40 percent of the income necessary for a family of four to reach the poverty threshold……Thus, on basis of its level alone, the PFD is at best a partial basic income…

Finally, because of its flat and universal nature, the PFD on its own makes a very modest contribution to the reduction of inequality. But the PFD together with the elimination of the state individual income tax that was part of its founding has an overall regressive effect on income distribution. To have a significant redistributive effect, the PFD would have to be recouped from wealthy individuals; in the absence of a progressive state income, consumption, or wealth tax, the PFD would have to be distributed on a sliding scale with larger dividends given to those with less income from other sources, rather than as a uniform flat payment….

The PFD does serve as an excellent model for the conceptualization of natural resources as commonly owned—an important step along the path to acceptance of the idea of a basic income. It provides a model of cash transfers to individuals without any stigma of dependence, fraud, waste, or failure—attributes often attached recipients of other government cash transfers. The PFD’s funding source in natural resources rather than in taxes on individual income or wealth seems to exempt it recipients from any need to justify their use of the dividend, and to exempt the transfer as a whole from the ‘socialist’ label….’

It has been argued that it is preferable to have oil profits distributed broadly rather than end up in the pockets of only a few corporate executives, wealthy shareholders, and political cronies.

Alaska is the only state that does not collect sales tax or levy an individual income tax on any type of of personal income, either earned or unearned. Every Alaskan, children as well as adults, receives a payment each year from the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. The USA does not have child benefits, although there is a child tax credit system for parents or guardians of children under 17 who meet certain requirements. (The PFD is taxable by the Federal government).

Further review of information shows that in 2002, the poorest 20% of Alaskans relied on their dividend for 25% of their total income….some Alaskans depend on their dividend for up to a quarter of their yearly income, especially Native Alaskans, who make up 15% of the population. Those in poverty brackets and many of those living a subsistence lifestyle cannot afford to lose the dividend as a source of income.

However, review of articles on this program also states that the sense of entitlement has been established where it is very difficult to reduce state spending in this particular benefit at the expense of politicians losing their jobs, because state residents view these dividends as ‘rights’, not ‘privileges’.

One could argue that monies are being given to children who have not earned that privilege. They have earned no money and have not paid any taxes.

If one looks at the PFD contributions over a twenty year period (lifetime of a family with children) in comparison to singles /individuals, the financial unfairness becomes apparent very quickly. From 1996 to 2015,the benefits have ranged from a low of $846 to a high of $2,072 annually. For a family of four the twenty year total amounts to $113,156 and for a single person household the amount is $28,289. A lot more can be done with $113,000 than $28,000.

Prosperity Bonus (‘Ralph Klein $400 Bucks’) Program

The Prosperity Bonus, also nicknamed Ralph (Premier of Alberta at that time) bucks, announced in September 2005, was the name given to a program designed to pay money back to residents of the province of Alberta as a result of a massive oil-fuelled provincial budget surplus. This program gave $400 to every citizen of Albertan in the year 2005.

For a family of four, the benefit was $1,600, while a single/individual received $400.

ANALYSIS

‘Free Money’ Benefits allow families to achieve greater wealth than singles/individuals even though the children of these families have not earned any income or paid any taxes. Married/coupled persons without children also achieve greater financial benefits because of accumulated assets times two.

SOLUTIONS

To achieve greater financial equality between singles/individuals and married/coupled persons and families, the following suggestions are submitted:

Eliminate children from these programs until they reach the age majority since they have not made any contributions to the coffers in the form of salaries or taxes; rather, they are using resources such as education instead of contributing to them.
Top up benefits to singles at rate of 1.4 Market Basket Measure to that of married/coupled persons as it costs more for singles to live than married/coupled persons living as a single unit.

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

POLITICIAN’S RESPONSE LETTER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND SINGLES’ FINANCES

Posted on June 12, 2016 by ffswpadmin

POLITICIAN’S RESPONSE LETTER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND SINGLES’ FINANCES

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

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

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

A portion of the letter is reproduced as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table for two equivalence scales:

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Posted on May 14, 2016 by ffswpadmin

FORT MCMURRAY FIRE DISASTER ASSISTANCE EQUALS POVERTY FOR SINGLES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on May 11, 2016 by ffswpadmin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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