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

Posted on March 31, 2018 by ffswpadmin

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

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

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

WHAT IS GASLIGHTING?

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

GASLIGHTING OF THE DISADVANTAGED-EXAMPLES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LESSONS LEARNED

Shea Emma Fett wrote in Everyday Feminism:

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

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

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

TWO ARTICLES ON HISTORY AND MEANING OF GASLIGHTING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FINANCIAL POST PERSONAL AND FAMILY FINANCIAL PROFILES STAR RATINGS-Part 2 of 2

Posted on July 10, 2016 by ffswpadmin

FINANCIAL POST PERSONAL AND FAMILY FINANCIAL PROFILES STAR RATINGS-Part 2 of 2

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

(six-reasons-why-married-coupled-persons-are-able-to-achieve-more-financial-power-wealth than singles)

(Andrew Allentuck from the Financial Post oversees the personal and family finance profile evaluations. Anyone can submit their financial profile to the Financial Post for analysis by a financial planner. Some of these cases have been used in this blog. It is helpful to know the background behind these financial analyses. In Part 2 of 2 the following information outlines the top ten questions that the Financial Post receives regarding these financial profile evaluations. The blog author’s comments re questions are entered below some of the questions.)

Financial Post, December 22, 2012 “THE TOP 10 FAMILY FINANCE QUESTIONS OF 2012 (financialpost)

‘….In hundreds of letters to Family Finance requesting assistance and commenting on the problems folks face in paying their bills, 10 top issues emerged:

Debt…a 1.0% interest rate increase on a home equity line of credit will turn a $100,000 interest-only loan floating at 3.5% or $3,500 to a heftier $4,500 a year…
Tax shelters Inability to make the most of RRSPs, RESPs, TFSAs and, for those who qualify Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSPs) spurred many readers to ask how they could sock away more money and which choices in the alphabet soup of these plans would be most tax efficient.
Downsizing Family transition from children to empty nests and the need to raise cash for retirement spending came up in more than half of our cases. The amount of money that can be raised or the amount of debt that can be liberated depends on the market price of home or cottage. Where prices are very high – think Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary and Toronto – readers sensed that they could take a profit over cost, especially if they had owned the home for many years, pay debts and have cash left over for a smaller home or for renting….’

Comment: The unfortunate truth is that many seniors (married or coupled and widowers) living in their expensive big homes do not want to downsize. Many financial assistance programs have been implemented included house tax assistance and renovation assistance. Many singles and poor families, however, do not have the ability to own big expensive homes. Singles are told they can move or go live with someone if they have problems with housing. It is primarily only wealthy families that have cottages or second properties, motorhomes and other expensive toys.

‘Children Couples and those expecting a first child wrote in dozens of cases to ask what is the cost of raising a child. A 2011 study by the Manitoba Department of Agriculture suggested that a child born in 2010 would set its parents back by $191,665…..’

Comment: Some statistics give a figure of $250,000. To 18 years of each child, this amounts to $13,889 per year and $1157 per month. It is difficult to understand why parents (beyond replacing themselves with two children) would have three, four, five children when they know they won’t be able to support themselves and their children within the parameters of their budgets and salaries. When it is known that there is a world population explosion and the earth will not be able to sustain this population explosion, why would responsible parents have more than two children?

‘Boundaries It is one thing to know the statistics of child-rearing expense and another to manage it. Readers asked many times how much they could afford to give their kids for RESPs and for activities while at home. It was common to find cases in which parents, strapped for money, spent $400 to $500 a month for sport yet could have cut down on hockey and put enough money into RESPs to qualify for maximum government grants. Indulgences included foreign travel with parents and money for cars for teenagers. When the parents wound up strapped for cash, it was clear that they had failed to set boundaries on what they would spend and what they might ask their older children to earn to support their sports, hobbies and travel.’

Comment: Straight from a financial person’s mouth-married or coupled families with children often don’t set boundaries in reality to what they can afford. However, singles are often told they spend too much and are selfish even though they don’t have the same financial income and assets as married or coupled families with children.

‘Limits to portfolio growth
Understanding risk
Insurance Virtually every reader has insurance for his home and car, but life insurance is another matter. A third of our readers need more insurance than they have to cover to risk that the single breadwinner in a family could die prematurely. Another third have inappropriate coverage with costly whole life that builds cash value slowly, or universal life they (and many financial analysts) can’t understand. The remainder need to adjust their coverage up or down with how their lives have changed. The math within life insurance is complex, the tax breaks that life insurance can afford are valuable, and the protection against many creditor claims life insurance can provide are precious, but few readers understand how intricate a product life insurance is.’

Comment: Life insurance should be made mandatory for all married or coupled family units, just like home and car insurance. Life insurance should replace all boutique tax credits directed towards widowers as they are now technically ‘single’. Ever singles and divorced persons do not get benefits that widowers get and are, in fact, helping to support widowers with these benefits. Also, education on term insurance as the most cost effective insurance needs to be promoted.

‘Retirement age A generation of readers grew up aspiring to retire at age 55. Two-thirds of the letters to Family Finance raise the question of how they can get enough money to retire then or a little later. Today, the mid-50s goal is so 1980 – before the crashes of the dot-coms, 9/11 and the 2008 debt crisis. In fact, few readers have sufficient capital to make it to 55. Instead, working another decade to 65 or even 67….is necessary. Working longer not only allows more savings, it postpones the time that retirees have to start drawing down their capital. Working longer also provides a reason to get up in the morning, maintains associations, and even sustains credit ratings. Full retirement at age 55 is an idea whose time has come and gone for most.’

Comment: Again, straight from a financial person’s mouth-married or coupled family units seem to believe they can retire early after having received multiple family tax credits, and then be able to pension split without paying very little for these credits. Many singles have to work longer while paying to help support married or coupled family units and the multiple tax credits they receive. Singles receive very little of these tax credits.

‘Make a budget Many requests to Family Finance ask for help making a budget. Readers regard having a set of rules as a key to meeting savings goals for their kids and retirement. Where cash is tight, a set of rules for the road is surely a good idea. Just thinking about what categories of spending should have various allocations each month is helpful. Mundane it may be, but writing a budget can be a first step to sound family finance.’

Comment: Everyone should have a budget. In addition to family budgeting, parents need to teach their children about budgeting, the Rule of 72 and what the real costs are for items like expensive sports activities. If singles are thought to be spendthrifts and selfish, maybe it is because their parents never taught them anything about finances. Or, maybe it is because married or coupled family units with children don’t even to try to understand what it costs single persons to live once they leave home. More married or coupled family units with children need to educate themselves on all the benefits they receive, how little they are paying for these benefits and what it is costing other family units like singles to support these benefits that they, themselves, do not receive.

CONCLUSION

It would be helpful if all citizens learn to take responsibility for their own financial well-being instead of looking to others to support them in the form of government tax credits. The present upside down financial situation of giving to the wealthy (particularly married or coupled or family units with children) while making them pay less needs to be reversed so those who truly need assistance receive this assistance (poor singles and poor families with children). It is absurd that the wealthy are accumulating huge inheritances like TFSA accounts without paying taxes on these accounts. It is absurd that the wealthy parents want to leave huge inheritances for their children, but do not wish to give up assets like big houses while receiving tax credits such as house tax financial assistance and pension-splitting. It is absurd that governments do not take into accounts assets as well as income when handing out tax credits.

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

EVALUATION OF MONEYSENSE ARTICLES RE THE COST OF RETIRING WELL: COUPLES VERSUS SINGLES, DECEMBER, 2014 AND JANUARY, 2015.

Posted on March 27, 2016 by ffswpadmin

EVALUATION OF MONEYSENSE ARTICLES RE THE COST OF RETIRING WELL: COUPLES VERSUS SINGLES, DECEMBER, 2014 AND JANUARY, 2015.

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

SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR THIS BLOG POST

MoneySense, December, 2014, “The Cost of Retirement Happiness” by David Aston (couples) /the-cost-of-retirement-happiness/

MoneySense January, 2015, “Single Retirees: The Power of One” by David Aston (singles) /single-retirees-the-power-of-one/

Kudos to MoneySense-they are one of the few sources of information that identify what it truly costs singles to live in comparison to married/coupled persons.

——————————————————————————————————————–

The above articles for couples and singles were presented in two different timeframes by MoneySense. financialfairnessforsingles.ca thought it would be an interesting exercise to combine the figures from both articles and complete an analysis of the figures for the married/coupled retirees versus the singles retirees. (It is important to note that the definition of ‘single’ status by MoneySense is not the same definition used by financialfairnessforsingles.ca and Statistics Canada. The only person who is truly single in the six profiles is Spencer as an ‘ever’ single person (never married, no children), while Reynolds is divorced and McDonald is widowed. This is based on and justified by the Canadian Income Tax forms where the status of the tax filer has to be entered re status of married, single, divorced/separated or widowed and Statistics Canada definitions of marital status).

MoneySense Comments on Retirees Incomes

Couples – According to MoneySense author, a couple should be able to have a middle-class retirement lifestyle spending $42,000 to $72,000 a year including income taxes and assuming there is a paid-for home and no debt. After tax, that will leave about $38,000 to $62,000 a year to spend as couples choose. The minimum of about $38,000 (excluding taxes) should be sufficient to cover the basics, including operating a car and eating healthy. Money Coaches Canada advises keeping annual spending on the basics within the $25,000 to $35,000 range, while trying to ensure there is at least $10,000 for extras, (Dec. /14, article).

Singles – According to MoneySense author, a middle class single retiree should count on spending approximately $30,000 to $50,000 a year including taxes and assuming there is a paid-for home and no debt. This is about 70% of what is required for a couple since it costs about 70% of the couple’s rate for a single to maintain the same lifestyle as a couple.

For $30,000 income, taxes would be about $2,000 to $3,000 for older singles and $3,800 to $5,100 for younger singles below age 65. After taxes and if budget is tight, singles should allow at least $20,000 to $25,000 a year for the basics (including shelter, groceries, transportation and clothing) and at least $5,000 for the extras like entertainment and travel, (Jan. /15, article).

Detailed Financial Information

Couples

Case #1 – It is stated that the Taylors live frugally but comfortably. They have a paid-for three-bedroom home in a nice neighborhood and a ten-year old mid-level car. They eat out occasionally and take regular vacations. They spend just over $25,000 on the basics, which leaves enough left over to spend almost $12,000 on the extras. They both have university educations and held high-paying jobs in the technology industry while raising one child, who now lives independently. Their modest spending habits allowed them to build their savings quickly while working, so they were able to retire in their early 50s and have a large nest egg.

Many advisers tell prospective retirees that they need to replace 70% to 80% of the peak income they had while working, but the Taylors live on less than 20% of the $250,000 they earned while working.

Case #2 – The Statscan couple depicts the average spending by senior couple. (Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of household spending in 2010) plus inflation adjustments using the Consumer Price Index.

Case #3 – The Coopers, both close to 70, have lots of money to do the things they consider important, but don’t live a lavish lifestyle. They spend modestly on the basics, which leaves plenty for the extras that give them the most satisfaction, like travel. Their basic spending, at just under $45,000, isn’t much more than that of the Statscan couple. But by economizing on the basics, they can afford to spend about $36,000 on the extras. They learned frugality early on in life. During their working years, they lived on his public sector professional salary while she had primary responsibility for the household and raising three children. They also benefitted from his pension plan and saved by living well within their means and invested wisely. They have two vehicles (buy them used and keep them well beyond ten years). Now they have far more money than they need to support their accustomed lifestyle.

The Coopers love to spend money for the benefit of their extended family. They have a two-bedroom condo in the city as well as a vacation property. They use their $16,000 travel budget for regular vacations. They even spend some of their budget to cover the cost of extended family joining them on vacation. They also contribute to their grandkids’ RESPs. And while the $6,000 they budget for charitable and personal gifts is not enormous, they have distributed around $500,000 to their kids over the years to give them a good start.

Singles

Case #1 – ‘Ever’ single Spencer is in her early 60s and had to stop working at her physically demanding public sector job over a year ago due to a repetitive stress injury. She hopes to return to work in some role, but even if she is unable to work again she feels she can live comfortably and sustainably on what she now has in savings, as well as government and employer pensions. She has a $38,000 budget and pays $5,000 in income tax. Based on having a paid-for home she will spend about $23,000 on basics which leaves about $10,000 left for the extras. She recently made the choice to move to a small town, mainly for the small town lifestyle, but also for the lower cost of living as well. Money has been set aside to purchase a modest home. (She does state that earlier in life she had some bad spending habits; however, she has learned to make careful, purposeful spending choices).

Case #2 – Reynolds in her early 60s (split up with her partner about ten years ago and no children?) is intent on making the most of retirement and has above-average means to do so. Recently retired after a career in the public sector, she has a budget of $73,000 a year, including about $33,000 for the basics, and a sizeable $25,000 for the extras. She likes to travel and has about $6,000 a year allocated to it. In the early years of her career she was fixated on saving, which helped provide the ample nest egg she has today, including a group RRSP.

Case #3 – McDonald, a widower in his late 60s, has an above average budget of about $81,000, including $41,000 for the basics and $21,000 for the extras. He uses his money to support hobbies, travel and spending on his two grown children and their families. He is trying to find a balance between spending his money and leaving a large legacy. He takes two to three trips a year with his $10,000 budget. His budget also covers some travel for his children and relatives. He spends quite a bit on groceries and restaurants, including paying for meals with extended family. He happily spends less than his ample means would allow.

Qualifying Statements by MoneySense about the two articles

The MoneySense author along with Money Coaches Canada notes that the category ‘shelter’ includes property taxes, utilities, maintenance, house insurance, rent and mortgage payments. Case #3 Statscan figures include a small proportion of costs attributable to a second home. For the ‘vehicle’ category, $2,000 a year has been added for depreciation. The category ‘home and garden’ includes cleaning supplies, furnishings, appliances, garden supplies and services. The category ‘recreation and entertainment’ includes computer equipment and supplies, recreation vehicles, games of chance, and educational costs.

The author also makes the following qualifying statements: “If you are single, you know that retirement planning is tougher for you than it is for couples. You have no one to rely on but yourself, and you can’t share expenses or split income. As a result, you can’t just take the cost of retirement for couples and divide it by two. Situations vary, but a single person will need to spend roughly 70% as much as a couple to enjoy an equivalent lifestyle in retirement…The figure for couples isn’t twice the figure for singles–it is only about 40% higher because spouses are able to share costs for things like housing and cars. The higher per-person income singles need also results in higher taxes”.

Table

The following table combines the financial profiles of the three couples and three singles from the two articles into one table.

Following the table are financialfairnessforsingles.ca comments evaluating the results of the financial profiles.

Analysis of the Financial Profiles of Couples Versus Singles

Marital Status

First, it is important to get one fact straight. Couples who divorce/separate and persons who are widowed are not singles. The only person who is truly single in the six profiles is Spencer as an ‘ever’ single person (never married, no children). The profile of the ‘ever’ single person shows that she is likely at the bottom of the financial status list in terms of wealth as she is the one with a modest home in a small town where it is cheaper to live. The separated person likely has a better financial profile because she was able to accumulate wealth as a coupled person for twenty-five or thirty years and was separated later in life (if she had separated earlier in life, she likely would have a financial profile more equal to the ‘ever’ single profile). All of the other profiles show that they have more wealth and homes in nice neighborhoods and even second homes (Coopers).

Benefits

Marital status also determines who is likely to have more benefits. It can be assumed that the couples have the higher financial status simply because they are married or widowed. The married profiles will most likely pay less income tax than the single profiles because couples receive two of everything, have the ability to pension split and can get survivor benefits when widowed, etc. As retirees, the two profiles that lose on benefits are the ‘ever’ single person and the person who is separated.

It is stated that most of the couples have lived so frugally that they now have more money than they need, but at same time have three bedroom houses in nice neighborhood, vacation home, and can retire in their 50s and 60s with a very comfortable lifestyles. This implies, even with frugality, they had plenty of money to spend and save as married/coupled families with children.

The single person is the one that has to move to a smaller town to lower living expenses while others are living in what appears to be substantial housing.

Taxes

On examination of the profiles, it is easy to see that the persons who are paying the most taxes are the ever single person, the separated person and the widowed person. The Taylor couple pays the same taxes as the ‘ever’ single person (Spencer), but they have approximately $5,000 more in income and appear to have much more wealth in terms of assets (must be the pension splitting). It pays to be married. The Statscan couple pays less income tax (almost one half of the amount equal to 13.4%) than the separated Reynolds person (20%), but her income does not come even close to double of the Statscan couple. The Coopers are paying only $20,000 on $100,000 income (20%).

The widowed person (McDonald) with all of his wealth is most likely receiving survivor benefits. Did he pay extra for these benefits and why is he portrayed as being single? If he is now single why should he receive anything more than the ‘ever’ single person and the separated person?

Benefits to Families of Coupled People

The profiles of the coupled persons and the previously coupled person (widower McDonald) blatantly state that they have more money than they can spend and have given generous monetary gifts, paid for the meals of their kids, grandchildren and extended family members, etc.

Married/coupled people or previously coupled people are often able to give exorbitant gifts, inheritances, etc. to family and extended family. Does this not create a sense of entitlement for family, children and grandchildren who begin to expect this all the time? How does this extravagance teach frugality?

Emergency Monies

Where in any of these profiles has money been set aside for emergencies? The person most likely to be unable to pay for financial emergencies due to illness, financial issues, etc. is the ever single person with the least accumulation of wealth.

Education, Education, Education!!!

It is beyond comprehension on how governments, families, society and think tanks lack knowledge and are financially illiterate on the true facts of how ‘ever’ singles and divorced/separated retirees are financially robbed to subsidize married/coupled retirees by paying more taxes while getting less benefits like pension splitting and widower benefits in this country.

Singles require 70% of the income/wealth of Couples

How many ways can this fact be stated and how many different sources of information does the government and society need to make changes on how singles are financially discriminated against in this country?? Do Members of Parliament ever think to include singles when making important decisions like pension splitting and benefits that benefit only the married/coupled and families of this country? Government, businesses, society and media only ever talk about middle class families. Singles meanwhile have been financially discriminated against by their government and society.

How expensive is it to raise a child?

So how expensive is it to raise one child, two children, and three children and still come out on top in terms of wealth in the personal profiles? Governments, society and families, think tanks continue to talk about how expensive it is to raise a child, and yet many families are able to leave large legacies/inheritances to their children. Unfortunately, based on the facts this seems to be based on the half-truths and lies of governments, society, families and think tanks.

Profiling

Singles are often profiled as having excessive spending habits/lifestyles while married/coupled persons are usually profiled as being frugal. Married/coupled persons in their retired state are still profiled as being frugal even though they can give extravagant gifts (in one case around $500,000) to their children and grandchildren and spend more money on items like vacations.

Happy, happy, happy!!!!!

In both articles the profiles and the author comments seem to imply that everyone is happy, happy, and happy with their financial status. ‘Ever’ singles and divorced/separated retirees are blatantly told they should be happy with what they have even though they have been discriminated against financially.

‘Ever’ single persons and divorced/separated persons not so lucky to have achieved equivalent wealth (70%) of married/coupled persons as shown in above examples wish to state they are not happy with being financially discriminated against on every level of government and society. They are not asking for more than married/coupled people. They are asking for financial fairness.

FINAL STATEMENT

Governments, businesses, society, families, think tanks all maintain that the middle class is being affected most by poverty. The real truth is that ‘ever’ singles, singles with kids, persons divorced/separated early in marriage/coupling, and families with low incomes are being affected most by poverty. Singles (‘ever’ and divorced/separated) in this country are not happy with always being excluded from financial formulas and conversations. They are human and in their humanity are equal to married/coupled people, and it is time that they are treated with the same financial fairness, dignity and respect as married/coupled people.

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

INHERITANCES-LOST DOLLARS FOR SINGLES

Posted on December 30, 2015 by ffswpadmin

INHERITANCES – LOST DOLLARS 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).

In the featured post of this blog ‘Six Reasons why Married/Coupled People are able to Achieve More Wealth than Singles’ (six-reasons), the sixth reason states that married/coupled persons are able to achieve more wealth because they receive two inheritances, while singles receive only one. (All things being equal it is assumed that spouses will receive an inheritance from each side of the family).

Research suggests that the average Canadian inheritance is $100,000. This does seem somewhat understated, especially since the average Canadian house is now worth $400,000 plus.

Thomas Piketty’s book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” (Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century) describes how inherited wealth is growing at a much faster pace than economic growth leading to not just a highly unequal society, but to a society of oligarchy, to a society where inherited wealth will dominate, and patrimonial capitalism.

At the present time inherited wealth is outpacing economic growth because capital is tending to produce real returns of 4 to 5 percent while economic growth is much slower at a rate of 2 to 3 percent.

Inherited wealth for married/coupled persons will develop at a much faster pace than inherited wealth for single persons not only because of two inheritances, but also because the rate of return (rule of 72) (Rule_of_72) will also increase the total net worth for the two inheritances. The result is that low income and middle class singles will more likely have difficulty maintaining a decent income level throughout their working lives and into their retirement years in comparison to married/partnered persons.

Outside the Box Thinking

All things being equal, since singles are at a financial disadvantage (investment potential, costs more for singles to live, married/coupled persons receive more in benefits,etc.) in comparison to their married/coupled siblings, parents should think about dividing inheritance between their children so that the single child receives an additional 20%-25% of his/her share of the inheritance. (added January 14, 2016)

LOST DOLLAR VALUE LIST

A value of $100,000 lost will be added to the list. This is probably grossly understated since, first, inheritances are likely higher than $100,000, and second, the rule of 72 growth has not been added since it is not possible to calculate. (However, using rule of 72, a rate of return of 3.5 per cent would double the original $100,000 in twenty years.)

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